CONTENTS
Tuesday, November 1, 1994
Motion for concurence in the forty-fifth report 7474
Bill C-57. Consideration resumed of motion for second reading 7474
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 7477
Mr. Tremblay (Rosemont) 7478
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 7484
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 7485
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 7488
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 7492
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 7499
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 7499
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 7502
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 7504
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 7505
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 7506
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 7506
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 7507
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 7507
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 7509
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 7510
Bill C-57. Consideration resumed of motion 7511
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 7511
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 7513
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 7517
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 7519
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the committee.) 7520
Bill C-55. Consideration resumed of motion for second reading 7520
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 7520
Bill C-56. Consideration resumed of motion for second reading 7534
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 180; Nays, 44 7534
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee.) 7535
Bill C-53. Consideration resumed of motion for second reading, amendment and amendment to
amendment 7535
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 93; Nays, 131 7535
Bill C-54. Consideration resumed of motion for second reading and amendment 7536
Bill C-210. Consideration resumed of second reading 7537
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division ) 7538
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 40; Nays, 179. 7538
Consideration resumed of motion 7539
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 7539
7469
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, November 1, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the government's response to
28 petitions.
* * *
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure on
behalf of our government to table the 1995 plan for immigration
levels.
One year ago this week our Liberal government took office
and put in motion a new style of governing. That new approach
included the creation of a department for citizenship and
immigration. This new department better reflects the
relationship that has always existed in Canada between
newcomers to our country and nation building. The two are
mutually reinforcing. Liberals believe in the positive
constructive force that is immigration.
Ten months ago I launched a process of consultation with
Canadians on the future direction of our immigration program.
Our consultations were guided by two principles: first, to
engage Canadians in an informed and constructive debate, to
debate issues, to debate facts, to debate figures, to debate
expectations, to debate aspirations of what we want for our
country, and to try to put aside as best we can, as dispassionately
as we could as a nation, the myths and some of the
misconceptions that unfortunately from time to time have
gripped this very emotional area of federal public policy.
The second was to reach out more broadly to Canadians, not
only to talk to the traditional groups that have helped build this
positive immigration policy but to involve all Canadians who
wanted to make a contribution. The views of special interests are
important but they must be balanced with the interests of all
Canadians.
In so far as that is concerned, it was important to try to bring
into the tent for the very first time, at our government's
initiative, the non-traditional players of immigration; to bring
in the boards of education, the municipalities, the labour
movement and the labour organizations, to give force to
citizens, the ability to go to the microphones at York University
or at the other places at which we met, and to voice their feelings
and their beliefs about Canada and the immigration policy. The
process of what we were doing could also be said to be equally
important as the substance of what we were debating. For the
first time we were enlarging that tent so that we would be able to
try to build a consensus among the Canadian lobby for what we
want our immigration policies to do for our country in the
future.
[Translation]
We wanted to actively encourage broad participation: Over
13,000 kits were distributed across Canada to school boards,
elected officials, groups and individuals interested in
immigration. One hundred and thirty thousand information
tabloids were distributed. And Canadians responded.
From February to September thousands of Canadians told us
what they thought in town hall meetings and study circles. We
received hundreds of letters.
Six weeks ago we met in Ottawa at our national conference to
listen and learn.
[English]
Today we are making the decisions that Canadians expect of
their government and which participants asked us to make.
Consultation will always be the hallmark of how this
government decides policy. The ultimate purpose of
government is to decide and to move forward.
Today we table before Parliament our immigration policy for
1995 and beyond, a policy rooted in our values and which
reflects our ideals for our country.
(1010 )
While we only have a few minutes to distil this plan, the
document entitled ``A Broader Vision, Immigration and
Citizenship Plan, 1995-2000'' represents a fundamental change
to Canada's immigration program. In the past I believe too much
emphasis was placed on the numbers game rather than on trying
to produce a long term comprehensive plan that would give full
7470
expression and comfort and understandability to that eventual
number.
From our consultations a new approach has emerged, one that
calls for a broader vision and a clearer sense of Canada's
objectives. First, instead of putting a single number before the
House of Commons, this plan introduces the concept of a range,
a realistic range that for 1995 anticipates between 190,000 and
215,000 immigrants and refugees will come to Canada.
It is a range, realistic and honest, in terms of more or less what
we would anticipate based on our decisions as a government and
as a country but also on what those inventories across the world
will yield because some of them are low. There are fewer
independents coming to the country whether because it was of
the bad shape of our economy or the fact that those economies
were doing well or the perception that the doors were closed.
The number of families is down. The number of business
immigrants is down for similar reasons. We also have to take
stock of those inventories across the world.
What we heard across the country was the need for a better
balance among the four categories of immigration. Sometimes
we were too obsessed with the global one number figure that
became the lightning rod for most of the debate. Instead we have
four categories that we should pay close attention to and then
decide how one plays off the other. What are the tradeoffs that
we need to make between a family class category, an
independent category, a business category and a refugee
category?
It seems to me that as a Parliament and as a government we
need to give greater clarity, greater focus and make some of the
trade-off decisions of how those compartments play with each
other rather than simply talking about the end number of the
equation.
In looking to that balance the share of economic immigrants
will rise from 43 per cent to roughly 55 per cent of overall
immigration, while the family component will shift from 51 per
cent to approximately 44 per cent over the period of the plan.
This will make the immigration and citizenship program more
affordable and sustainable. We remain determined to target
immigration levels of approximately 1 per cent of the
population over the long term based on our ability to absorb and
settle immigrants.
It should also be said that the whole question of the principle
of family is not only contained in the family class category but
throughout the program so that when we invite an independent
immigrant to Canada that individual brings with him his
immediate family. It is the same thing when we invite and accept
a business immigration applicant as it is when we accept a
refugee, he or she has an ability of bringing in the family.
The family class is also beyond that narrow category and the
principle of family is applied equally and compassionately
across the spectrum which is based on a Liberal philosophy for
immigration.
Moreover, changes to the selection of skilled workers and
immigrants will increase the economic benefits of immigration
and lower the cost eventually of settlement. It is important as
our documents raise that our point system be changed and
adapted to the kind of skills that our country at this time
requires.
Pre-eminent among those skills is the whole question of
language. That is priority number one, here in our country and
how we deal with language abroad in terms of our visa officers.
Other skills and aspects are education, age, experience,
moving away from just the job classification to basic job skills
that will allow those individuals to make an easier transition
into the new economy, as well as the feature where people will
now be having two, three and sometimes four careers in their
lifetime. That shift is not born out of any movement. It is taking
stock of the economy today. The forces moving the world are
very different from the forces following the second world war.
The tools we use in immigration, namely the point system, must
be adapted to the pace of that change both globally and here at
home.
(1015)
The new approach to family class will respond to the desires
of many who cannot now sponsor those they would like to bring
to Canada. It will also ensure that all sponsors are held
responsible for fulfilling their obligations.
Beginning with the 1995 plan, the refugee and immigration
components will be managed separately. This will underscore
the distinction between the protection and resettlement goals of
the humanitarian and refugee program, of which Canadians
should be very proud, and the economic and social objectives
that frame the skilled workers, business and family class
categories.
[Translation]
The plan renews our commitment to develop a new
Citizenship Act designed to create a common bond between
Canadians by birth and by choice. An increased emphasis on
responsibilities, apart from rights, will underline the value of
citizenship for all Canadians. Finally, the plan confirms our
commitment to co-operate with the provinces in our shared
responsibility for immigration.
[English]
The other major document we are tabling today talks about the
strategic framework, looking down the 10-year road. I outline
the direction the government intends to take immigration and
7471
citizenship policy into the 21st century. It sets out a framework
based on five basic and key elements.
First, the enrichment of our social fabric through selection of
immigrants and their successful integration into Canadian
society as full participating citizens.
Second, the supporting of Canadian economic growth through
actively promoting our country as the best place in the world in
which to live and work, something that the UN has recognized
two years out of the last three.
Third, the recognition of the importance that Canadians place
on the family and maintaining that program in a manner that is
sustainable and responsible.
Fourth, the realization of Canada's humanitarian mission
through a coherent strategy that separates the refugee and
immigration streams and meets the twin challenges of
protection and prevention. It reflects fully the commitments
which the government made in September at the International
Conference of Population and Development in Cairo.
Fifth, the provision of fair access and ensuring that the rule of
law is respected at all times by all people in our country.
Throughout the elaborate and extensive consultations
Canadians pointed to a loss of confidence in the immigration
program's ability to control who enters Canada and to enforce
the Immigration Act against those who have been ordered
removed. Through legislative initiatives such as Bill C-44,
which is before the House, we are seeking to restore Canadians'
confidence and thus contribute to the government's broader goal
of creating safe streets, safe homes, safe communities.
The consultations also reveal that Canadians are concerned
about the sustainability of Canada's social benefit system. The
government is addressing that broader challenge by opening a
dialogue on improving social security in Canada. For our part
we will contribute to the solution by focusing more on those
immigrants less likely to require public assistance.
Changes to the sponsorship obligations and their more
rigorous enforcement will enhance the fairness of access to
social benefits. We have already begun discussions with the
provinces and agreements on information sharing have already
been signed with six municipalities in Ontario.
In closing, a successful immigration policy has always been
part of our history and our development as a nation. Liberals
believe that immigration has worked well for Canada. Liberals
believe that the forces of migration have helped build a nation
when many other people view these forces as a negative.
(1020)
Liberals also believe that we need to manage those positive
forces in the face of monumental change across the globe. The
strategy and plan that I have tabled on behalf of my caucus and
government sets the right direction as we prepare Canada for the
21st century.
The plan is fair, sustainable and affordable to the newcomer
and to Canadians. I invite all members, indeed all Canadians, to
join with us as we move forward boldly, confidently and
aggressively into the 21st century.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, although
we received only this morning the document tabled today by the
minister, we still have a few preliminary comments to make.
As the minister said, consultations lasted 10 months and cost
$1 million. Unfortunately, the paper before us does not outline a
real policy on immigration and citizenship. We do not detect a
dominant theme either in the minister's speech or in the
document tabled today. We still do not know where the minister
is going with regard to immigration and citizenship. We thought
that today the minister would announce decisions or reveal what
he intends to do in the years to come.
All he said is that, in 1995, the number of immigrants will be
between 190,000 and 215,000 and the number of refugees,
between 24,000 and 32,000. Incidentally, this violates and
contradicts the red book, whose goal was 1 per cent of the
population per year.
The goals set by the minister himself for the year 1994 will
not be achieved. No more than 230,000 people will immigrate to
Canada in 1994, instead of the 250,000 announced by the
minister at the beginning of the year. We, however, agree with
the minister about reducing the number of immigrants. We were
told that the number of applications to immigrate to Canada is
down, and we are also aware that the economic recovery is still
creating difficulties, that the unemployment rate remains very
high in Canada and even more so in Quebec.
We would like the minister to focus on immigrant integration
in 1995. Thousands of immigrants who come here cannot find
jobs and do not receive government assistance either.
As for refugees, we want to ensure that the minister will
continue to honour Canada's international humanitarian
commitments to this class of people seeking Canada's
protection.
(1025)
There are still too many refugees in the world-more than 20
million-and Canada must do its share in this regard; we in the
Bloc Quebecois are very sensitive to this problem. The
documentation submitted by the minister does not give us a very
clear indication of whether he intends to respect Quebec's
jurisdiction for immigration, if he intends to comply fully with
the McDougall-Gagnon-Tremblay agreement signed in 1991,
7472
which recognizes Quebec's exclusive right over the integration,
reception and selection of immigrants.
As you all know, Quebec is a distinct society. It has its own
official language and as the only French-speaking state in North
America, it must protect and encourage francophone
immigration. Neither does the minister's document show us how
he intends to promote immigration to Canada. We know that
there is a growing feeling of hostility to immigrants and
especially refugees, but we believe that the Canadian
government and the provinces will have to inform the public
about the benefits and positive aspects of this immigration.
Immigration has made a tremendous contribution to Canada's
economic prosperity. Immigration is necessary to deal with the
demographic problems in Canada and Quebec. Immigration is
necessary to renew our rapidly aging population. This must be
explained. We must tell Canadians that the advantages far
outweigh the disadvantages, that despite all the propaganda to
the contrary, immigrants make less use of social services in
Canada, that the crime rate of immigrants is less than the crime
rate of Canadians born here.
In his document, the minister does not say either how he will
resolve the problem of appointments to the Immigration and
Refugee Board. He continues to make appointments.
Complaints are still coming from lawyers, immigration and
refugee groups, clients and the public at large. Some
appointments not based on competence are still being made.
Some appointments are still purely political and we would have
liked the minister to propose mechanisms for making
non-partisan appointments.
Is it possible to create a committee of lawyers from the bar or
immigration organizations so that there is a pre-selection before
the commissioner is appointed? The minister does not deal with
another problem, the backlog at the Department of Immigration
and Citizenship. Too many cases are outstanding, too many
applications take months and even years. The minister
unfortunately endorsed the Conservative Party's decision to set
up a processing super centre in Vegreville, Alberta, and this has
caused a great many problems.
People can no longer find their way around. Today you can no
longer reach an official to explain the situation. You have to
keep calling numbers which are always busy. It is not easy to
obtain the documents to be completed and to submit an
application.
(1030)
Civil servants are not pleased with the system. Jobs were
eliminated in Quebec and in all the other provinces. Services
provided in French by the centre in Vegreville are not adequate.
The minister also says that he will table a bill on citizenship.
We are waiting for that legislation. I ask the minister to
reconsider the concept of dual citizenship. The Standing
Committee on Citizenship and Immigration has recommended
to the minister that dual citizenship be eliminated. Such a
measure would be an unacceptable step back, considering that
countries now recognize more and more the concept of dual or
triple citizenship, and that the mobility of people has increased
considerably throughout the world. We cannot eliminate such a
precious right for all Canadians and particularly for those
immigrants who want to keep a tie with their country of origin.
This concept is good for Canada and also for immigrants, who
can be good communicators with their country of origin and
promote Canadian trade there. It is good that people can have
this dual citizenship if they want it.
We are also concerned by the fact that, in some documents
given to us today, the minister talks about occupational training
and about promoting co-operation between his department and
the Department of Human Resources Development, regarding
immigrants. We, Bloc Quebecois members, have clearly said
that occupational training falls under exclusive provincial
jurisdiction. The federal government should not interfere in that
sector. The provinces are closer to the client group. They are
more aware of the needs in manpower training. The minister
now says that his department will set up a vocational training
centre for immigrants, in co-operation with the Department of
Human Resources Development. This is unacceptable and the
Bloc Quebecois strongly opposes this proposal by the minister.
I also want to say that the Bloc Quebecois is a
pro-immigration party. More often than not, we do not share the
somewhat exaggerated views of our friends from the Reform
Party regarding immigration and citizenship issues. Quebec is,
and remains, a country, a nation and a province open to
immigration. There is a consensus in our province in favour of
accepting immigrants. Incidentally, we anticipate that, for 1995,
Quebec will maintain the objective of 40,000 new immigrants;
for 1996, it will be 42,000, while for 1997, the number should
reach 43,000. Bloc Quebecois members, as well as Quebec
society as a whole, are open to immigration, which we consider
to be a source of social, cultural and economic wealth.
I am proud to be an immigrant myself. I am proud to be a
Quebecer and to be of Chilean origin.
(1035 )
[English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am dumbfounded and Canadians should be outraged over what
has just been revealed here by the minister.
Almost a year ago this minister initiated a $1 million
consultation during which thousands of well meaning patriotic
Canadians put time, talent and energy to work proposing
changes to immigration. During the last several months this
minister has engaged in a series of well planned media leaks,
floating trial balloons, raising expectations, talking a tough line
7473
and trying to out reform the Reform Party in policy, or at least
that is the impression he has left.
In the last week the minister admitted to a cost to the taxpayer
of at least $700 million in family sponsorship breakdowns. He
promised he would do something about it. This morning we
found out that nothing has changed, nothing has been done. The
consultations were a fraud. There has been a lot of talk, talk,
talk, study, study, study, and it looks like the studying will
continue.
For anyone who wants a lesson in old style politics, we are
learning it right now. It is a lesson in trying to manipulate the
media, a lesson in trying to manipulate the public, a lesson in
trying to please everyone by not offending anyone. It is a lesson
in government inaction.
One need look no further than this government and its
minister of immigration to get a good picture of what has
happened. Let me outline with no fancy language or rhetoric
what the minister is going to do this year.
The percentage of economic immigrants with their families
was 43 per cent. In 1995 that number will still be 43 per cent.
The percentage in the family reunification class of those already
in Canada was 51 per cent. This year it will still be 51 per cent.
Other immigrants were 6 per cent last year. This year, surprise,
surprise, it is 6 per cent. The total number of immigrants
accepted this year is 230,000. The total number expected next
year is up to 215,000, a change of only 6 per cent.
That is not a cut. It is nothing more than an expectation of
lower application levels. The levels are so high that our sources
in immigration tell us there are not enough applications to fill
the slots. This minister wants to take credit for lower numbers
and those lower numbers have nothing whatsoever to do with
government action.
A bond for sponsors will be studied but no immediate action
taken. During the year or so this government plans to study this
issue, Canadians will have to fork out at least $700 million more
in sponsorship breakdowns. Where is the enforcement of what is
happening here already to save those taxpayers dollars?
Changes to refugee policy, there are virtually none, except an
ongoing amnesty that rewards those who can tie up the system
for three years. There are no changes to control and
enforcement, except for the defective Bill C-44 which is already
pending in the House.
This minister said changes would be made that would make
immigration work to the benefit of society. He said that more of
an emphasis would be placed on independent immigrants.
However this plan for the next year says that family
reunification is still the highest priority of the government and
that the ultimate goal of immigration levels equal to 1 per cent
of the population still stands. We are talking about numbers in
the vicinity of 300,000.
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am
sorry, but we cannot follow the debate because we cannot hear
the simultaneous translation.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. We were having
technical problems, which have now been solved.
(1040 )
[English]
Mr. Hanger: Listen to the minister's math on page 8. In 1995
accompanying family and sponsored families together are
expected to make up about 80 per cent of total immigration from
the broader vision immigration and citizenship outline. On page
9, economic immigrants, skilled workers and business
immigrants will make up 43 per cent of the immigrant
component for 1995. This percentage remains unchanged from
1994. If you add up family and independent immigration you get
a whopping total of 123 per cent. That is Liberal math. Nothing
changes. The numbers are fudged. No action is being taken.
Today's announcement is pure smoke and mirrors.
This government thinks the Canadian people can be swayed
into believing that non-action is action, that no real change in
numbers means a cut, that tough talk equals tough action in the
minds of the voters. Well I have news for government members.
The people will not buy it.
Today's announcement says that enforcement will be beefed
up and that removals will be clarified when in fact the minister
has created a permanent amnesty for failed refugee claimants.
That is pretty convenient. Those people who have tied up and
backlogged the system with taxpayer funded appeals, with legal
manipulation for three years get an automatic amnesty.
This government punishes those applicants for immigration
who make a real contribution to this country, those who play by
the rules, who fill out the right forms, who wait in queues that
last for years in some cases. At the same time the government
rewards those applicants who come in illegally, who work the
system with legal aid lawyers and who can evade removal for
three years. That is disgraceful.
Let us look at the numbers again. The 1994 plan calls for
30,700 skilled workers. The 1995 plan calls for 24,000 to 26,000
skilled workers. The 1994 plan calls for 6,000 business class
immigrants. The 1995 plan calls for 4,000 to 5,000 business
class immigrants. The total economic class was 97,700 in 1994.
This year it is 71,000 to 80,000.
In other words we are looking at substantial cuts to those
immigrants who can make an immediate and substantial
contribution to the economy. There is no change to the level of
those immigrants whose contribution is unknown and there is an
amnesty for those immigrants who jump queue and abuse the
system.
7474
Again the independent and economic classes are dropping
substantially and do you know why? Because the same woolly
headed policies that are guiding the immigration department are
also guiding the finance department, the human resources
department, and on and on.
This Liberal government has created an economic climate of
high taxes, huge debt and low return on investments. It is
discouraging those immigrants who could contribute the most to
the economy of the country. In fact in Calgary there are
something like 400 business class immigrants who have not
invested their money because they do not see any advantage in
doing so. Canada is no longer an attractive place for investors
and business people. It is however the most attractive
destination in the world for queue jumpers and failed refugee
claimants.
The immigration plan speaks of a broader vision, a 10-year
framework. It is a broader vision of the same old thing, a new
framework for the same old policies. It has cost the immigrant
program its legitimacy. It has discouraged independent
immigrants. It has made the Canadian people fundamentally
question the role of immigration to Canada. That is a shame.
(1045 )
Immigration can and should work for the country.
Immigration should be about nation building. That term has
been used by the government time and time again but it really
rings hollow when said from that side. It should be about
enriching Canada. It should be about benefiting immigrants and
Canadians alike.
The plan is about deceit, number fudging and politicking. The
government has let down immigrants and Canadians alike.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present the 45th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. It
concerns the membership of committees.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I think you will find that there is unanimous
consent to dispense with the reading of the 45th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Also,
with the consent of the House, I would like to move that the 45th
report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs, tabled in the House today, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
[English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Shall all questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I wish to inform the
House that pursuant to Standing Order 33(2)(b) because of the
ministerial statement Government Orders will be extended by
40 minutes.
_____________________________________________
7474
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from October 27 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-57, an act to implement the agreement
establishing the World Trade Organization, be read the second
time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is certainly
a pleasure to be able to speak for a few minutes this morning on
Bill C-57 and to talk about world trade and the importance of
world trade to Canada and to Canadians, in particular the men
and women who work in the country's agriculture and agri-food
sector.
The legislation we are discussing today will establish the new
World Trade Organization or the WTO. It will incorporate the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, a sweeping 120-nation
accord which was agreed to in principle in December last year
and was approved by member countries last March or April in
Morocco. The agreement and the WTO which will administer it
offer great benefits for Canadians in the creation of jobs, wealth
and the opening and securing of new and vital markets for the
country's export commodities.
Canada is a nation that is dependent on trade, and we all know
it. Nowhere is that more evident than in the agriculture and
agri-food sector. In 1993 Canadian agri-food exports of $13.3
billion contributed a surplus of almost $3 billion to Canada's
balance of trade, almost one-third of Canada's total
merchandise trade balance. As former Liberal agriculture
minister, Eugene Whelan, once noted, agriculture pays the bills.
At the same time Canada's share of the world agri-food
market has declined since the early 1960s. In contrast the
European union's share, particularly that of France and the
Netherlands, has increased significantly. From Canada's per-
7475
spective exports to Europe fell from $1.35 billion in 1981 to
about three-quarters of a billion in 1993. At the same time our
imports from the European union rose from about $400 million
to almost $1 billion. This tells us that while the sector is doing
well it must continue to do better.
(1050)
Last year the industry and federal and provincial governments
agreed on the goal of increasing Canada's agri-food exports by
50 per cent from $13 billion per year in 1993 to about $20 billion
per year in 2000.
In July of this year the agriculture ministers reaffirmed that
goal and added a further target of achieving a 3.5 per cent share
of world agri-food trade. That is an objective in line with our
historic share, but it will push the requirements to meet that to
exports which will reach a value and total of about $23 billion.
In addition to steps that are being undertaken in Canada, the
new WTO will have a large role to play in increasing our
exports, increasing jobs and increasing prosperity. The World
Trade Organization represents a significant step forward for the
agriculture and agri-food sector. The agreement sets down for
the first time ever clear rules for international trade of
agricultural products.
The agreement represents a substantial reduction in trade
distorting export subsidies, better trade rules for agriculture,
and improved and more secure access to markets around the
world for Canadian producers and processors. It will greatly
assist Canadian producers and processors in their continuing
efforts to develop new markets around the world. The new
markets will be in addition to the Mexican and U.S. markets that
we have obtained through NAFTA. New rules will apply equally
to all countries and the specific exemptions of countries will be
eliminated. This will allow Canadians to compete in a more
predictable and fairer international trading environment.
What does it mean in real terms? The respected OECD or
Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development
predicts that for all sectors, the total, the agreement will inject
almost $8 billion into the Canadian economy by the year 2002.
That is $8 billion into the pockets of working men and women
across the country over the next eight years.
The government was elected to create jobs and wealth. That is
why I am bullish on the WTO. I know some members,
particularly those from Quebec, Ontario and Atlantic Canada,
have some genuine concerns about just what sort of impact the
agreement will have on the country's vital and prosperous
supply managed sector, the dairy, egg and poultry sector.
Let me take this opportunity to assure the House that supply
management will be able to continue to operate as an effective
Canadian approach to producing and marketing dairy and
poultry products. The agreement supports the continuation of
the supply managed industry through two fronts. The first front
is the import tariffs first announced in December 1993. They
will maintain a high level of protection for the sector. It is true
these levels will be reduced by a total of 15 per cent over the
course of the next six years, but it will still afford producers and
processors with the protection they require. The six-year phase
in period will give them ample opportunity to make the
necessary adjustments in order to compete and win in the new
international marketplace.
Imports which will be coming in under the minimum access
commitments will not unduly disrupt the Canadian market. For
butter the access commitment will rise from about 1,900 tonnes
to around 3,200 tonnes from the year 1995 to the year 2000, a
five-year period. In the poultry area import access of chicken
will continue to be governed by the CUSTA or the FTA. Access
for turkey will rise slightly to about 5,600 tonnes by the year
2000 while egg access will also rise very slowly. It is unlikely
there would be imports of dairy, poultry or egg products outside
these access commitments since the tariff levels will make them
uneconomical.
(1055)
The government regards very seriously its commitment to the
future and to the well-being of the supply managed sector. That
is why on December 16, 1993 the federal and provincial
agriculture ministers formed a small task force, headed by
myself, to look into the specific implications for Canada's
supply managed industries.
After consulting with all stakeholders the task force proposed
that an industry ad hoc review committee in each case be
established for each commodity group sector. These ad hoc
committees have been meeting throughout the year, will be
meeting over the fall, and will continue to meet to determine
whether a consensus can be reached on orderly marketing
frameworks for the future. The task force was scheduled to
report to the federal-provincial ministers meeting in December.
I can report the results are very promising, although they have
been incredibly challenging and are not all completed yet.
Successful conclusions will be reached in order to maintain the
sustainability of our orderly marketing system to the benefit of
the industry and to all Canadians.
The World Trade Organization also holds benefits for other
sectors within the Canadian agricultural industry. Volumes of
European union and United States wheat shipped with export
subsidies will be reduced over the next six years by 40 per cent
from the levels they are at present. The reductions in export
subsidies for wheat, barley, vegetable oils and other grains are
expected to significantly improve market prospects for
Canadian grains and oilseeds in world markets.
7476
The agreement offers good export potential for other
commodities as well. Replacing import restrictions and levies
with tariffs in the European union, Japan and Korea will result in
additional export opportunities for beef, pork, malt and a range
of processed food products. The inclusion of an agreement on
intellectual property rights will offer protection for Canadian
whisky and wine names. This is expected to improve the
marketing of these products throughout the world.
Processed food and vegetables such as French fried potatoes,
canned corn, frozen blueberries and raspberries, and other
products such as honey, maple syrup and apples, will benefit
from reduced tariff and non-tariff barriers notably in the
European union and Japan. Special crops such as dried peas,
beans, lentils, tobacco, mustard, canary seed and alfalfa will
also benefit from improved access. For example, the European
union will eliminate tariffs on lentils and white pea beans over
the phase in period. Japan will reduce its tariffs on lentils by 36
per cent.
A framework of rules will reduce the misuse of technical
measures as unjustified barriers to trade. Measures to protect
human, animal and plant life or health, which measures were
usually referred to as sanitary and phytosanitary measures, will
be subject to clear disciplines. We will continue to have the right
to establish the level of health protection that we consider
appropriate in Canada. However, the measures any other
country uses to achieve that level of protection must be based on
a sound scientific approach.
As I mentioned earlier, the WTO will for the first time
establish clear rules for international trade of agricultural
products and eliminate heavy handed and unfair trade rules and
restrictions. A good example is the U.S. and its use of the section
22, a trade measure it has used that has been featured
prominently in recent Canada-United States bilateral relations.
When the World Trade Organization is implemented in 1995
the United States will have to give up its GATT waiver which
allows it to take section 22 trade actions. Obviously there will
continue to be disagreements in our large and mutually
beneficial trade. We will deal with those on an individual basis
as they arise. Thanks to the WTO a particularly onerous piece of
trade protection such as section 22 will be a thing of the past.
As countries around the globe change to meet their WTO
commitments, Canada too will have to make some adjustments
in order to comply with the new world of international trade.
(1100 )
While the export subsidy provisions of the agreement will
have an impact on the Western Grain Transportation Act, the
Government of Canada has already been consulting with the
sector to reform the WGTA. This consultation is designed to
ensure that the WGTA better meets the needs of producers,
industry and Canada's export customers and to bring it in line,
along with other government programs and policies, with the
new fiscal realities being faced by the government.
This consultation will ensure that affected stakeholders will
have a vital role to play in crafting a made in Canada reform of
the WGTA. Over the course of the next few months the Minister
of Agriculture and Agri-Food will conclude these consultations
with a view to being in a position to make an announcement
early in 1995. The government is confident that these reforms
can be implemented long before the World Trade Organization
reduction provisions would take effect.
The world is changing and it is imperative that Canada change
with it, lest we will be left behind. The WTO will usher in a new,
vibrant and exciting period in international trade, a period where
clear trade rules will replace unfair and discriminatory trade
barriers, where Canadian products will be able to compete in
markets around the world on their own merit and not be hobbled
by the extra weight of trade restrictions, where Canadian
producers, processors and exporters do not head for the end zone
only to find that the goal posts have been moved.
As I said at the beginning, Canada is a trading nation. Much of
its wealth depends on trade. Fully one in four jobs in this country
are trade related. The agriculture sector, indeed all sectors, need
the stability and the market certainty that the World Trade
Organization has to offer.
Canadians are ready, willing and able to do the job. They
simply require access to the proper tools with which to do that
job. The WTO will provide them with the necessary tools to
compete and to win the export markets, to further hone our
competitive edge and to create jobs and prosperity for all
Canadians. I think they deserve that chance.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I want
to congratulate the parliamentary secretary for his speech on the
World Trade Organization this morning. He shares a view that a
lot of us share, that it is vitally important to Canada to
implement the World Trade Organization.
I was interested in his comments regarding agriculture and the
fact that agriculture probably is one of the biggest winners in the
GATT negotiations. For the first time we have trade rules
established that are going to govern agriculture. I would like to
ask if the parliamentary secretary shares my view that one
important sector in agriculture still needs quite a bit of work,
and that is the whole area of supply management. For the first
time border restrictions have been converted to reducing tariffs.
Very high levels of tariffs are set. It is my understanding that we
have a second round of negotiations in agriculture down the
7477
road, either in five or six years, under the World Trade
Organization, once it is set up.
I wonder if he shares the view that it is imperative that we
continue to move this process along toward reducing tariffs with
the ultimate goal in Canada and the United States of having free
trade in the supply managed sector as well. Would it not be
important to ask the supply managed industries to move toward
a certain period of time? Everybody realizes that they need some
time to adjust. I certainly do because these people have financial
obligations which they had made under the rules of the day.
However the new World Trade Organization is going to shed a
lot of light on the fact that Canada has some weaknesses at
home, as does the United States, in the area of supply managed
tariffs that are extremely high. I wonder if the parliamentary
secretary could share his views on how that can be achieved.
Mr. Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member across expects
members on this side of the House to say that they do not believe
in supply management of the dairy, egg and poultry sector, he is
speaking to the wrong group. We believe in it. We support it. We
are working with those sectors.
(1105 )
I have had the opportunity and still have the privilege of
chairing the task force that is working with all of the
stakeholders in the supply managed sector. Each one of the
commodities, be they dairy, egg or poultry, are adjusting and
evolving.
I am sure the member is somewhat familiar with what has
taken place during the last few weeks in the poultry industry.
The supply managed industry has provided, at a reasonable cost
to Canadian consumers, the highest quality, most constant
supply of those products that any country in the world has
without fluctuating prices. The supply is always there. It is of
high quality and it is safe.
In return it has given a tremendous amount of stability not
only to the primary producer but to the processors and to the
complete agri-food chain. They know where their product is
coming from. They negotiate what the price is going to be and
then the consumer knows that product will always be there and
be of top quality.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
during his main speech, the hon. member for Prince
Edward-Hastings said earlier that supply management could
be maintained. And then he started to talk about higher tariffs
that could protect farmers working in a supply managed
industry. Every member in this House knows full well that the
supply and demand oriented farming industry is concentrated
mainly in Quebec and in Ontario and that supply is regulated by
quotas.
In order to reassure me and to reassure our farmers, be they
involved in dairy farming, poultry farming or egg production,
can the hon. member tell us what will happen to their quotas?
Again last week, I met a big dairy farmer who told me that he
evaluated his quota at $750,000. He feared that the value of his
quota would decline, even maybe down to nothing after six,
seven or eight years. He said: ``Mr. Chrétien, my quota was my
pension fund. If it is not worth a thing tomorrow morning, I have
lost my pension fund''. If he loses his quota, this would be a hard
blow to the real value of his farm.
I would like the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings to
reassure us, since, as you know, Quebec accounts for 48 per cent
of all dairy production. Of course, most Western farmers are not
subject to supply management. For these farmers, GATT is
obviously a marvellous thing, but for Quebec farmers, it may
not be so wonderful.
[English]
Mr. Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, I beg to differ with the hon.
member for Frontenac. The dairy farmers of Quebec and all of
the supply managed sectors in Quebec know the value of supply
management. If the translation was correct, he indicated that
they did not realize the value or they did not know. However, in
his previous comments he said that they did.
Forty-eight per cent of industrial milk production in Canada
is held by producers in Quebec, not 48 per cent of the total
production. There is a lot of fluid milk or consumer milk but the
industrial milk is that milk which goes for cheese and further
processing. That is held in Quebec.
I have said for a number of years and I will continue to say that
even though there has been some tariffication used as border
controls rather than a quantitative control, I am very confident
that supply management will be there for those sectors for a long
period of time.
I question the member's statement of the value of quota. If the
member looks at what has happened to the value of quota, he
will find with very few exceptions that its value in the last
number of months or since the GATT agreement of about a year
ago has not increased. I do not believe it has decreased, but if it
has it has been a very marginal amount. That happens over the
years because of production et cetera. It will go up and down.
(1110)
It is solid and it can be maintained. The government has
shown very clearly in working with the all the stakeholders in
the industry over the last number of months that it is our
intention to maintain it for the betterment of all Canadians right
from the farmer to the consumer.
7478
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Tremblay (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
continue this morning second reading of this bill to implement
the new GATT agreements and to establish the World Trade
Organization. I must say this debate was brilliantly launched by
the Minister for International Trade and by my colleague for
Verchères who is the international issues critic for the Bloc
Quebecois.
Second reading provides for a discussion of the principles and
general direction of a bill while more technical aspects are
closely analyzed in committee and, if necessary, the Bloc
Quebecois will table amendments at third reading.
After long negotiations, Canada, like all other GATT
members, must pass legislation bringing into force at the target
or desired date of January 1st, 1995, the GATT agreements
reached last April. These agreements strengthen significantly
the legislative framework for international trade and define
more clearly the rules of the game. They increase the number of
sectors subject to these rules, improve the trade conflicts
settlement mechanisms and, finally, establish the World Trade
Organization, which we have been waiting for since the second
world war.
This is considerable progress towards equal opportunity on
the world markets for small and medium-sized countries like
Canada and Quebec and, in fact, most countries of the world.
Even if great economic powers like the United States, Europe
and Japan still largely control the negotiation process, once they
agree to new rules, these rules apply automatically to all GATT
members, which, then, can benefit from a greater protection for
their international trade activities.
Whith a level playing field, performance on the international
markets depends less and less on the size of a country and more
and more on its ability to design, produce and sell high quality
products and services at competitive prices. Under such
circumstances, small and medium sized countries can do quite
well and even succeed better than large entities, as is proven
every day in the world economy.
I understand perfectly well the enthusiasm shown by the
Minister for International Trade who said in his opening speech,
and I quote: ``By creating a more open and stable international
trading environment this agreement will generate increased
Canadian exports and investment''.
The minister is quite right and I can assure him that, on the eve
of becoming a sovereign country, Quebec shares his enthusiasm
and his understanding of the evolution of international trade
rules.
(1115)
Allow me to read another excerpt from his speech: ``Canada's
economic strength now and in the future will depend
fundamentally on our willingness to stay on the leading edge of
freer trade, to continue to take an active and creative role in
forging new relationships and in building new structures that
over time can extend the reach of a rules based international
order.
The multinational system centred on the World Trade
Organization will be the foundation of that international order,
but it is not the only element of what is and must be a complex
and constantly evolving trade order. We must harness for
positive ends the profound forces pushing us all toward deeper
economic integration. Today it is more accurate to speak not of
trade policy as such but of international economic policy''. And
listen carefully, this is the minister speaking: ``Jurisdictions and
policy areas that have long been considered to be
quintessentially domestic are now increasingly subject to
international negotiations and rule making''.
The minister is perfectly right. Again, Quebec is in total
agreement with the Minister for International Trade, so much so
that one might wonder if the minister consulted Mr. Jacques
Parizeau or Mr. Bernard Landry before he wrote his speech. That
is exactly what we keep saying when we consider the future
relations between Quebec and the rest of Canada.
On the eve of a referendum that will determine the political
future of Quebec and of the rest of Canada, I have to admit it is
heartening to hear at least one federal minister making the
realistic, clear and enthusiastic statement of the rules and
policies that will govern economic relations between Canada
and Quebec.
That conclusion and the praise I give to the Minister for
International Trade may come as a surprise, but it is quite simple
and natural. How could the Canadian minister seek economic
ties will all sovereign countries of this world and not with
Quebec, when we already have significant and productive trade
relations with the rest of Canada?
Canadians and Quebecers would have a hard time
understanding such an attitude, and the whole world would be
taken aback. But since other ministers, the Prime Minister
included, do not have that same open and realistic attitude, let us
specify what is at stake. While Quebecers wish their Canadian
partners will have an open and realistic attitude, the rules
governing our future economic relations will not depend on
attitudes only, but largely on rules set under the GATT.
It is largely a matter of international law, the broadening and
reinforcement of which the minister praised today. Article
XXVI(5)(c) of the GATT agreement provides that a new state
carved out of a country which is already a member of GATT
automatically becomes a member on becoming a sovereign
state, provided it accepts conditions and requirements applying
to the parent state. It is quite simple and clear. A C. D. Howe
Institute study says that most Canadian experts fully recognize
that fact.
7479
(1120)
It is primarily a matter of law. Quebec has already said that it
would apply for membership and that it would accept all
conditions and requirements that apply now to Canada. The only
choice for the international trade minister, then, is to welcome
the future relations between Quebec and Canada with the same
enthusiasm he demonstrates for other sovereign states. He
should so advise the Prime Minister. Given that the Prime
Minister just said he likes a good fight, especially with Quebec,
he will probably not greet the GATT rules with the same
enthusiasm as that shown by his Minister for International
Trade.
According to what he said, if Quebec becomes politically
independent, the rest of Canada will want to separate
economically from Quebec while remaining associated with all
other sovereign countries of the world. Well, Mr. Minister, you
will have to tell your Prime Minister that Quebec being a de
facto member of the GATT, the same rules will apply to Quebec
as to all other sovereign countries members of the GATT, and the
rest of Canada will have to abide by these rules.
In international trade or GATT terms, this very simple
principle is called the most favoured nation treatment. When a
country gives a tariff concession to another member, that
concession must immediately and unconditionally apply to all
similar products coming from all member countries. That is one
rule of law that will considerably restrain the Prime Minister's
aggressiveness.
But that is not all. GATT goes further. It does not merely
prevent discrimination between countries. It also anticipates
discrimination once the product is inside the recipient country
and therefore prevents discrimination towards other domestic
products. That is what we call the ``national treatment''. It
requires that GATT members adopt legislations on sales,
transport and usage of foreign products which are identical to
those governing similar domestic products coming from
national companies so that both foreign and domestic products
be treated equally.
The Prime Minister will have to admit that, if he is to abide by
the law, his leeway is limited. Naturally, if his aggressive
instincts are too vivid, he could break the rules of law and
trigger a trade war with Quebec.
If instincts were to prevail over reason, let me repeat word for
word what his Minister for International Trade said when he
tabled this bill. The agreement excludes the adoption of
unilateral measures in response to trade disputes. The new
integrated system of dispute settlement which would mean
clearer rules, shorter waiting periods and, for the first time, an
appeal process with a binding ruling, constitutes a major
improvement in the previous GATT system.
Finally, the effectiveness of the rules depends on the means of
having them enforced. You will note that we now have an appeal
process with a binding ruling, which means the possibility of
having them enforced.
(1125)
Consequently, this comprehensive reform of the multilateral
system of trade dispute settlement represents a major advantage,
although that is impossible to quantify for commercially less
important countries such as Canada, which are fundamentally
vulnerable to the unilateral approach of economic giants. That
would also apply, of course, to Quebec and Canada, so that there
would be no unilateral action in response. That argument
applies, of course.
What can we conclude from this short analysis of the GATT
rules and the speech of the minister responsible for International
Trade when comparing them to what the Prime Minister said
about future economic relations between the rest of Canada and
a sovereign Quebec?
I think that you will agree with me that the Prime Minister of
Canada seems to confuse the preparing of the referendum
campaign with the preparing of an Halloween party. Instead of
clearly and simply presenting the true face of future economic
relations between Quebec and Canada, he is looking for a
disguise to make people insecure, to scare them before the
referendum, while we all know that, after a winning referendum
for Quebec, the rest of Canada would simply not have a choice of
rules to apply. It would have to imperatively and minimally
follow the GATT rules.
After the fact, the Prime Minister will undoubtedly seek to
play down his strong language from the past referendum, the
hardly concealed threats made before the referendum. He will
probably want to explain to us that they were only minor
mistakes which would certainly not force him to resign.
I must admit that, personally, I have a lot of difficulty
respecting that kind of politician. A politician who was saying
during the last election campaign that he would not sign the
North American Free Trade Agreement without major
renegotiation, and who rushed enthusiastically to sign it a few
weeks after taking office. Today, he is playing exactly the same
game with the future economic relations between Quebec and
Canada.
During the last election, he did not fool Quebecers and they
massively voted for members of the Bloc Quebecois. I dare hope
that, today, the rest of Canada agrees more with the realism and
enthusiasm of the Minister for International Trade, who is
seeking to build open and stable economic relations with
sovereign states, than with the narrow minded and obsolete
attitude of the Prime Minister, when he talks about the future
economic relations of a sovereign Quebec with the rest of
Canada. The rest of Canada needs a spokesman like the Minister
for International Trade to prepare its future economic relations
with Quebec on an open, stable and productive base which
7480
would fit into the irreversible evolution of international
economic rules.
I can assure the minister that he will find in Quebec
negotiators just as enthusiastic and determined as he is in
supporting openness, stability and economic growth, something
which would be mutually profitable.
Today, thanks to this bill, we were able to discuss GATT. I can
say that we are just as prepared and willing to discuss possible
negotiations with regard to free trade, the auto pact and all the
other commercial rules that bind Quebec and Canada.
(1130)
[English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with great interest to the comments by the
hon. member from the Bloc about a potential trade relationship
between Canada and Quebec as a result of a Quebec separation.
The hon. member has the perfect right to ask these questions
even in a hypothetical situation in this Parliament. It is part of
the longstanding plan to make what is unacceptable acceptable.
If they talk about it long enough they will just wear us down and
we will accept it as fact.
However, I would like to pose to my colleague the following
scenario. Other Bloc speakers have addressed the importance of
supply managed industries, particularly the dairy industry, to
Quebec. As a matter of fact, with 25 per cent of the population
Quebec industrial milk supplies almost 50 per cent of Canada's
total needs.
In a sovereign Quebec competing on a worldwide basis for
these fundamental products, what does my colleague think
would happen to that quota in the rest of Canada? Does my hon.
colleague think for one moment that consumers in the rest of the
country would continue to pay a premium price for supply
managed or priced fixed products?
Supply management is a euphemism depending upon whether
you benefit from it or pay a premium for it. If you benefit from
supply management it is great. If you happen to be a consumer it
is price fixing. Supply management and price fixing depend
upon which side of the equation you are on.
Sooner or later Quebec will not have the benefit of supply
managed or price protected industries. Quebec will have to
compete on a worldwide basis. Would the hon. member please
respond to the core question. With a sovereign and separate
Quebec does he think that the rest of the country will continue to
buy Quebec products at a premium price?
[Translation]
Mr. Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
Edmonton Southwest for his comments and question. Of course,
you can approach this debate on the general principle armed
with technical data, but we will have an opportunity later on, in
committee and at third reading, to talk about the more technical
details, especially the GATT provisions regarding this issue.
Canada cannot unilaterally change existing or agreed upon
rules. We will have an opportunity to discuss this some other
time.
In general, in Canada, we have a whole series of protected
industries, although to a lesser degree than previously. The
member may know that because of subsidies, transportation
costs between Ontario and the maritimes are much lower than
between Montreal and Louiseville, which is only 30 kilometres
away. Subsidies are going to be decreasing because they will no
longer be allowed on the world market in which we must
compete.
The member also knows that for the past few years, it has cost
billions of dollars to support grain producers and that in view of
the present financial situation, it will soon no longer be possible
to provide the same level of support. Trade negotiations are
aimed at reducing grain subsidies in all the countries.
The same is true of production quotas. We are aware of it;
indeed, it is planned under the GATT agreement. Nothing comes
as a surprise. The GATT agreement provides for quotas to be
replaced by tariffs which will gradually decrease.
What you are saying is that should Quebec become politically
sovereign, Canada could unilaterally decide to speed up the
reduction of tariffs, which is already provided for under the
GATT agreements. My answer is that we have the GATT rules.
You can always try it; we will see what happens during the GATT
negotiations, unless Canada wants to withdraw from GATT and
isolate itself from the rest of the world. The rules are there. Of
course, farmers will have to adapt.
(1135)
You know what the problem is. Assistance to help farmers
adapt is completely ineffective.
I can tell you that last week the Bloc Quebecois met with the
president and the executive director of Quebec's Union des
producteurs agricoles. The executive director is a well known
economist who has, on a number of occasions, advised the
American government on agricultural issues and who knows the
agricultural side of international trade very well. He is quite
prepared to deal with the realities of GATT and the international
scene and is aware that agriculture in Quebec will have to adapt,
as it has in other countries.
As I am sure you know, the GATT agreements provide for a
certain number of stages and, within a certain number of years,
7481
these trade barriers will have to be lowered. But, as you know,
there is also the problem of the quality of what we are feeding
animals. When is a chicken a chicken? Is the quality of milk
nowadays, with all the new hormones, the same as it once was?
It has reached the point where we wonder whether we are
looking at a chicken or a chemical product.
So, there are problems with respect to the quality of animal
feed and of milk. A well known French scientist has said that,
for the first time in the history of the world, we are beginning to
wonder if science is serving mankind. For decades, until the
atomic bomb, we were not in any doubt. Now we are asking
questions about the food supply, in vitro fertilization, the list
goes on. We are wondering if science is truly serving us. Before
liberalizing all food trade with the United States, we must stop
and think about the health of Canadians.
[English]
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce-Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
always dangerous when we get into the realm of the
hypothetical. My friend from the Reform Party, the member for
Edmonton Southwest, posed a very significant question.
Whether Quebec separates or not it will have to deal with the
rest of Canada.
I do not think there was an answer with regard to how we
would deal with it, if it would be more effective than it is now or
not. Our Prime Minister is from Quebec. Our finance minister
comes from Quebec. The interests of Quebec can be best served
by our current system. There will be some arrangements and
what have you.
The rest of Canada will suffer and Quebec will suffer should it
separate. The people of Quebec have to understand that they are
going to substitute one set of people, intellectuals, government
for another. They have to ask if that is going to be a better
method than the current one. It will get terribly problematic.
The member for Edmonton Southwest posed a question about
the milk quotas. We have a lot of agreements as part of the
family. What happens when you are not part of the family and
you are separated? What happens in a case like that? We are in
the hypothetical realm.
The interests of Quebec are served best by the current system.
Notwithstanding that, it will change because the dynamics of the
way humanity is going have to change. We have come through
different kinds of revolutions. We have come through the
industrial revolution and we are into the information era now.
Quebec does a lot of good things. Its court systems are good.
The way it deals with young people is good. There are a lot of
things that the rest of Canada can learn from Quebec. However,
for Quebec to go with this bunch of intellectuals who are just
seeking power for their own sake I think is wrong.
[Translation]
Mr. Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that I did
not hear anything of consequence in my colleague's
intervention. As for his attempt to tell Quebeckers that he likes
them better than their members of Parliament, I will let them be
the judge of that.
[English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the debate preceding my speech on
Bill C-57, I am almost tempted to change it and make a few
remarks with regard to a separate Quebec and what would
happen to supply management as it now exists in the province of
Quebec.
(1140 )
Needless to say, I would briefly say that the hon. member for
Rosemont is circumventing the issue and is not prepared to deal
very frankly with his constituents and the people of Quebec as to
what would happen if there were a separate Quebec trying to
deal in trade issues with the rest of Canada.
The purpose of my address this morning to the House is to
speak to Bill C-57. I want to speak to it more directly as it
affects grain transportation in western Canada. This bill will
very directly affect the lives of my constituents in
Kindersley-Lloydminster. On balance this bill will have a very
positive effect on the farming industry and I fully understand the
need for this piece of legislation.
I have some concerns about some of the things that are not in
the bill and the fact that in many areas more should have been
done. It is essential that this World Trade Organization
agreement be implemented to move the combatants in the
international trade war in the direction of trade, peace and
sanity.
This large, three-inch thick bill represents the successful
completion of the Uruguay round of the GATT and this
agreement is the largest, most complex and most comprehensive
trade negotiation ever undertaken. The major agreement for
Canada is the introduction of a common set of rules to govern
trade in agricultural products.
This bill has the effect of causing changes in 31 existing
statutes to bring Canada's internal trade distortions in line with
international regulations. I will concentrate my remarks today
on the changes to the Western Grain Transportation Act and the
impact they will have on the agricultural industry, particularly
the Canadian Wheat Board region of Canada.
Unfortunately this legislation makes only the minimum
possible changes to the WGTA in order for it to comply with the
new GATT and World Trade Organization rules. I believe we
must continue to work toward a complete overhaul of the WGTA
to make it relevant to today's realities. I am discouraged that the
7482
Liberals are making only minor changes only because they have
been forced to.
The WGTA was enacted in 1983 and it is recognized that the
requirements for agricultural transportation have changed.
Farmer productivity was up and is up. Farms were bigger and
crop yields were growing rapidly.
The minor changes to the grain transportation system found in
this bill fail to recognize that the changes in the industry since
1983 have continued the pre-WGTA trend. It has become clear
that the international community views the current grain
transportation system as a direct subsidy.
Bill C-57 makes very few changes to the act ensuring
technical compliance with international rules at present.
However, this is minimum compliance and will come back to
haunt us for two reasons. The fact is that as the schedule of
GATT regulations come into force we will have to continue to
make changes to our transportation system.
Rather than a real overhaul of the system to prepare Canadian
agriculture for the 21st century, the Liberals would rather make
a series of small changes with an eye to preserve as much as
possible of the past.
The second reason why making only minor changes to the
WGTA is inadvisable is that these changes will create some
inequities and biases between Canada's grain handling ports.
The Lakehead port at Thunder Bay gets singled out in the
subsidy regulations from the other main terminals in Vancouver,
Churchill and Prince Rupert. Historically Thunder Bay has been
favoured over western ports and this entrenchment of special
status will only deepen farmers' resentment of the system.
Legislators have always defended this action with
assumptions that it is cheaper to ship grain east through Thunder
Bay than to go to the west coast.
However, a 1992 study by the National Transportation
Agency revealed that it actually cost on average $1.04 more per
tonne to ship east. It would appear that even in the face of this
evidence, the special treatment continues. The St. Lawrence
Seaway is sinking in debt and burdened with growing costs and
shrinking traffic. Those in the industry are concerned that the
changes to the Crow rate will spell the end for the seaway.
Rather than make the necessary transportation reforms to help
the ailing waterway, it seems the government has decided to
play politics with agricultural transportation policy.
(1145 )
The introduction of this bill provides an excellent opportunity
to completely overhaul the WGTA. The grain transportation
issue has been studied to death. It is clear that farmers are
calling for a much improved system. I realize this government
prefers studies to action but there have already been so many
studies on this issue that there are no more studies that are
conceivable.
I really have to question the reasoning behind creating a two
tier system for grain transportation, one for Thunder Bay and
one for everyone else. Under the new regulations for Vancouver,
Churchill and Prince Rupert ports there will be a cap on the
amount of grain that can receive the WGTA subsidy.
More specifically this cap takes the following form: one, the
volume of subsidized exports must be reduced from 1993 levels
by 21 per cent over a six year period; two, the level of total
expenditures on export subsidies must be reduced over a six year
period by 36 per cent within a minimum of 15 per cent for each
specific commodity; three, over that six year period the level of
domestic support programs must be reduced by 20 per cent.
Regional development, research, environmental protection
and farm income protection programs are exempt. In the area of
market access all measures other than tariff duties must be
replaced by tariffs and lowered by an average of 36 per cent over
the six years.
After the cap is exceeded 100 per cent of the transportation
subsidy will be paid by the shipper who will then pass that cost
on to the producers. There will be none of these caps for grain
moved through the Thunder Bay terminal. Very interesting. This
encourages gross distortions like shipping grain to Thunder Bay
and then back out west before export just so it can qualify for the
WGTA subsidy.
It is no wonder our competitors have reservations about our
system. It might look as though this is a way of subsidizing
Canada Steamship Lines and the other lake freighter companies,
some which may affect the business interests of the Minister of
Finance.
Although changing the way the WGTA operates will create
some administrative difficulty, the common rules that our
international competitors now use are of net benefit to Canadian
farmers. Compliance may have some drawbacks for the
administrators but it is clearly in the best interests of farmers.
As I said before these changes that the government is making
are generally good but it would have been much better to
completely overhaul the transportation system.
Currently the WGTA legislates that the Crow benefit is to be
paid to the railroads. There has been an ongoing debate in farm
circles about the advisability of the pay the producer model for
transport assistance. There are those who have argued that it
would be much more effective and efficient to pay the Crow
subsidy directly to farmers and then have those producers pay
for the full cost of shipping a product to export.
Reformers have argued that the best way to encourage
efficiency in the system and to ensure that our agricultural
industry is GATT green is to undertake a complete overhaul and
consolidation of government agricultural support. We have
argued that
7483
WGTA spending should be included in a new trade distortion
adjustment program available to farmers caught under siege in
the trade war between the U.S.A. and Europe. Our trade
distortion program could be harmonized with the phase down
export subsidies of our trading competitors, particularly the
U.S.A. with its EEP program. We could target producers who are
caught in the crossfire of the trade war.
This trade distortion adjustment program appears to meet all
the GATT conditions for fair trade. It is publicly funded. It is not
commodity specific. It does not provide artificial price support
to producers. Not only would this kind of reform comply with all
of the GATT and WTO regulations, it would also provide the
Canadian industry with a more efficient system. A consolidated
support system would provide farmers with a more cost
effective agricultural plan that is more responsive to an ever
changing environment.
A thorough reform of the grain transportation system would
have to correct the many problems within the current WGTA.
The current system encourages inefficiencies like the
backhauling of carloads of grain from Thunder Bay which I
mentioned earlier. In many cases the same grain is shipped from
Winnipeg to the lakehead and then back again. Not only is this
gross waste but it is being done in part with taxpayers' money.
Unfortunately the minister of agriculture is delaying the action
he promised to rectify this absurd practice forced on us by the
WGTA.
(1150 )
Canada probably has the most inefficient hopper car
allocation system in the world. No doubt the Soviet Union had
one which was worse but it sort of went out of business. There
are far too many different players with their fingers in the car
pool. Everyone in the industry, the producers, the grain
companies, the Canadian Wheat Board, the grain transportation
agency and the railroads have cars going every which way and
no one has the overall control to allocate and co-ordinate grain
cars in the Canadian Wheat Board region.
One possible solution to that problem is to at least consider
privatizing the railway's rolling stock. Economic incentives
matter and it is unlikely that someone whose livelihood depends
on the efficient movement of hopper cars would continue the
current practice of bunching up idle cars at one end of the line
while grain is waiting at the other. Neither would they let them
sit for weeks at the end of sidings, either full or empty.
In the small community of Kyle in my constituency quite
often the railroad sends the cars down to the community. If they
would just work for 15 more minutes they could spot all those
cars and they would be filled that day and hauled out of the
community back on their way to export. In fact, because of the
regulatory system we have those cars cannot be spotted until the
train sits for eight hours. The cars are then spotted after that
period of time. This does not happen all the time but does occur
quite often. The crew then leaves Kyle leaving the empty cars
behind. The cars could have been filled during that eight hour
period but some of the regulations would have to be changed.
The other day a train arrived in the small community of
Beechy in my constituency. Because of a mixup in orders
several cars left the community empty. There was no procedure
whereby those cars could be allocated from one company to
another that had the right grain and could fill the orders at that
time.
There is another incident I would like to raise. A friend of
mine travels quite frequently between Calgary and my
constituency. He kept driving by the same cars which were
sitting on a siding in Hanna, Alberta. He was curious so he wrote
down the serial numbers of the first and last cars sitting on the
siding to make sure it was the same group of hopper cars sitting
there. Several months later when he drove by the same hopper
cars were sitting on the same siding, not rolling, not serving the
purpose for which taxpayers' money went toward in buying
those cars. The system has to change.
The current system has no incentives for efficient
performance in shipping grain. Perhaps more important, there
are no penalties for inefficient performance. All of the players in
this system are not adequately encouraged to make the system
work beyond their own small involvement in the whole process.
The current system is inflexible and tends to reflect the
agriculture production of yesterday. Our transportation system
should serve the agriculture economy of today and have a very
watchful eye on the future. The inflexibility of the WGTA, both
of today and after the minor changes enacted by this bill, stifles
that evolution.
Farmers of today have diversified and are now growing
canola, lentils, peas, mustard and canary seed, to name just a
few of the newer farm commodities. Currently our
transportation system is not adequately equipped for this
diversity and is therefore not serving the needs of Canadian
farmers.
Also, the current system hinders innovation in transportation
solutions. For instance, many private operators have offered to
take over the branch lines which the CN and CP can no longer
afford to run. These entrepreneurs have usually been blocked at
every step by the government, crown corporations and other
quasi-governmental agencies. I cannot imagine why the
government would hinder any proposal that would provide a
service to Canadian farmers which it cannot provide.
In short, the Canadian grain transportation industry needs a
complete overhaul to bring it into the 1990s and prepare it for
the next century. This bill makes a few long overdue
adjustments to the system, but again only the minimum was
done to ensure compliance with GATT.
7484
I cannot oppose this bill because the ratification of the GATT
agreement through this World Trade Organization bill is
absolutely essential if we are to effectively participate in the
wide areas of trade and export.
I challenge the government to do more than tinker with the
WGTA. In fact, I challenge this government to break down the
dozens of interprovincial trade barriers which prove that our
country is functioning less efficiently within our borders than
we are prepared to function with our trading partners through
this new World Trade Organization agreement. I challenge our
government to bring agriculture support mechanisms into the
21st century. I challenge the ministers of trade and agriculture to
follow up Bill C-57 with a complete and very necessary reform
package.
(1155)
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as
the hon. member of the Reform Party said so well, Canada is a
big country. And in this big country, there are wide differences
in both views and geography. The same applies to agriculture.
Throughout his speech, my Reform Party colleague had a lot
to say about grain producers, the Western Grain Transportation
Act and hopper cars that ride empty in order to get the subsidies,
but at no time did he mention the problem of Eastern producers,
or only in passing. Most of these producers earn their living
under a supply management system.
I hope that the tariffs that will eventually be substituted for
supply management will be high enough to protect our farmers
in Quebec and Ontario, including dairy, poultry and egg
producers. These tariffs are supposed to go down by 15 per cent,
while all tariffs will reach 36 per cent over a six-year period.
My question for my Reform Party colleague is this: How does
he see the position of article XI in the GATT negotiations, which
raises the question whether the markets of farmers who depend
on supply management will be sufficiently protected? I realize
that since the hon. member lives in Western Canada, he was
more intent on the needs of his own constituents, and I
understand that, but Quebec is still part of Canada-for a little
while yet, I hope.
I would appreciate the hon. member's opinion on supply
management and tariffs, as well as his party's position on these
issues.
[English]
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from
my colleague from the Bloc. I would first like to inform him that
there are supply managed producers not only in western Canada,
but a number of them are in my constituency. A number of them
support the Reform position with regard to what will happen to
supply managed industries.
During the election campaign Reform was the only party that
was calling a spade a spade. We said there were going to have to
be changes to the supply management industry if we were going
to be able to comply with the GATT negotiations that were under
way at that time and which were not completed until after the
election.
In fact what we predicted almost happened to be 100 per cent
accurate. The import quotas were replaced by tariffs. We
suggested those tariffs would have to be high enough to protect
those industries during a transition period to a global market
economy. The GATT agreement has actually been very generous
to the supply managed industries in that there are extremely high
tariffs in place, 300 per cent tariffs for many commodities,
which basically excludes any importation of those products.
As a result of this World Trade Organization agreement and
regulation it seems that the supply managed industries have
preferential treatment over many other sectors of agriculture
which are phased down more quickly and have to take much
greater reductions in subsidies.
I would respond to the hon. member in saying that the supply
managed industries have probably fared better than the majority
of producers in my part of the country who are going to see
substantially higher reductions in the subsidies they receive.
I would also take this opportunity to remind the hon. member
that if he does get his way and Quebec does separate from the
rest of the country, these favourable conditions certainly would
be very difficult to sustain. I am sure that Canadians would not
continue to give the province of Quebec as high as a 50 per cent
market share of industrial milk into Canada for instance.
(1200)
It would be wise if he would explain the situation to his
constituents. In fact they would be hurt much more by opting out
of Canada than by remaining in Canada, even though we agree
that supply management has to be reformed and that some of the
basic rules under which it functions have to change.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
will try to be as brief as I can. I was a little upset by what I just
heard from my Reform Party colleague, when he said that if, as
they say, Quebec should separate from the rest of Canada, the
rules for selling Quebec milk on the Canadian market would no
longer be the same.
7485
May I remind the hon. member that Western Canada, and
especially Alberta, enjoys certain facilities for marketing its
beef in Quebec which are also very attractive.
An hon. member: Eight hundred million.
Mr. Bergeron: Eight hundred million dollars worth of beef
annually, I am told. That is quite a lot. I imagine Canada will not
be so stupid as to jeopardize its markets in Quebec by trying to
strong-arm a future sovereign Quebec. The president of the
Mouvement Desjardins said that if Canada wanted to play hard
ball with Quebec after sovereignty, the financial consequences
would probably be the same for both parties.
Since Canada is a free trade country-at least I hope so-and
since it is a capitalist country and wants to make a profit, it will
not forego this attractive market in Quebec and thus will not
close its own markets to Quebec products, which would make it
vulnerable to the same treatment from Quebec.
That being said, my Reform Party colleague should also
realize that in a North American free trade context, these
so-called threats that Canada might close its doors to products
from Quebec are an anachronism, and Quebecers realize this.
[English]
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting the hon.
member would refer to the beef industry because it is one of the
most freely traded commodities in Canada. If there is anything
we have done in Canada in the way of regulation it is to help the
beef industry in central Canada by shipping our feed grains to
eastern Canada at subsidized rates under the Western Grain
Transportation Act, which I said should be eliminated and
administered in different ways.
I am not sure if there is a problem with the beef industry in
Quebec, but I assure the hon. member that industry is not
subsidized in western Canada. I am not sure if it is in his part of
the country. The only area where there are significant subsidies
is in the transportation of feed grains to his part of the country
for the beef industry there.
It must be that the producers in western Canada are very
efficient and are able to make a profit in the marketplace. I
applaud that and say that if they lose the Quebec market I am
sure they will be able to fill other markets without any difficulty.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to draw the attention of
my colleagues to the specific impact on culture of the current
trend towards globalization. We are now examining Bill C-57,
an Act to implement the Agreement Establishing the World
Trade Organization. The purpose of this bill is to harmonize
Canadian laws with the broad principles negotiated by GATT
members.
During the Uruguay Round, we maintained and we continue to
maintain, that in these wide-ranging global trade talks, culture
should enjoy special safeguards that respect the sovereignty of
states and their desire to preserve their specific identity. We are
of course referring to the demands made by the Americans to
include culture in free trade.
The Americans have been trying to impose their cultural
industry throughout the world for some time. The U.S.
audio-visual industry is their second largest export sector. They
have been able to develop a very powerful industry, since their
domestic market is the biggest in the world.
(1205)
That is why according to them, culture should be considered
as just another commodity, like a pair of shoes or a computer. In
fact, the Americans totally dominate the industry.
As early as 1947, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
contained a major provision, article IV, which was intended to
protect national cultures against the unbridled implementation
of the principle of the free movement of goods. This article
covered special provisions relating to cinematography. Member
countries were allowed to set screening quotas, in other words, a
minimum of domestic films to be screened in the country
concerned.
In 1961, the Americans demanded national treatment as
provided under article III and felt that the quantitative
restrictions imposed by certain states, including Canada, with
respect to U.S. television programs were discriminatory and
violated article III. Canada argued that its right to impose such
restrictions arose from article IV of the agreement, which
provided that a country had the right to limit access to its film
market. In fact, Canada extended to television its right to limit
the screening of foreign films. Of course in 1947, when the
GATT agreements were signed, television was a technology
whose impact was hardly predictable.
Various attempts to reach an agreement were unsuccessful, so
that as far as television programs are concerned, the intent of
article IV is still not quite clear. However, the controversy
clearly showed the lack of enthusiasm of the American
government for trade restrictions on cultural grounds.
In the late 1970s, the Americans are at it again. The GATT
secretariat is mandated by the contracting parties to compile a
list of all non-tariff barriers. The US list mentions various
foreign practices designed to limit the importation of American
cultural products. Also and for the first time, the United States
denounced the subsidization of national film producers and
distributors practised in 21 member countries. Again, the
principle of financial freedom advocated by American interests
clashes with that of cultural development and national identity.
7486
This exercise did not result in any concrete measures at the
Tokyo Round, in particular because the major part of the
cultural product was often considered within the OECD as
falling under trade in services instead of trade in goods, which
automatically excluded it from the scope of the GATT
agreement.
Starting in 1986, at the insistent request of the United States,
three new subjects were to be covered in the new round of trade
negotiations: intellectual property, investments and services,
culture being assimilated to a service. It then became
increasingly difficult to exclude cultural products from the
market logic peculiar to GATT.
In 1990, in the context of these negotiations, a special
committee was set up to look into the liberalization of trade in
the specific area of audiovisual. Two opposite sets of views were
represented in this committee, with the United States insisting
that no restriction be put on the movement of goods and
services, while the European Community was asking that, where
the cultural identity of a state were involved, the State in
question not be forced to make concessions that could put its
cultural identity at risk. This committee was eventually
dissolved, it being absolutely impossible for its members to
come to an agreement.
At the same time, Canada was negotiating a free trade
agreement with the United States. And again, culture and
cultural sovereignty were at the centre of the debate. All the
lobbies directly or indirectly associated with cultural industries
set out to convince negotiators and the public that cultural
products had to be excluded from this agreement. The
Conservative government changed its mind on this issue
depending on which way the wind was blowing: one day, culture
was on the table; the next day, cross my heart and hope to die, it
was not.
(1210)
Completely contradictory statements made it impossible to
get at the truth. The government claimed that the question of
cultural sovereignty was not negotiable, but in fact did not
demand the exclusion of the cultural industries for fear of
jeopardizing the success of the negotiations. Furthermore,
during the negotiations, the government scrapped a film bill
designed, among other things, to guarantee better control over
the distribution of foreign films within Canada.
In other words, even while the North American Free Trade
Agreement was being hammered out, the Canadian government
was backing away from one of its fundamental responsibilities
intended to support cultural development. Knowing that
Americans produce 97 per cent of the films we see, we cannot
help but be concerned by the lack of vision of the Canadian
government of the day.
The withdrawal of this bill is a threat to our cultural future. In
fact, according to the experts, the cultural protection obtained
by Canada in the Free Trade Agreement and renewed in NAFTA
remains ambiguous and could be challenged. This ambiguity is
summed up in article 2005 of NAFTA. Paragraph 1 provides that
cultural industries are exempt from the provisions of the
agreement, and paragraph 2 allows the Americans to take
reprisals in other areas of activity if they feel that Canadian
cultural policy goes against their interests. So much for
Canada's ability to undertake any legislative measures
necessary to further its cultural development. Such measures
could be ill viewed by the Americans, who would take
retaliatory action by virtue of the powers given them under
paragraph 2 of article 2005.
Now we understand why the Canadian government withdrew
its bill limiting distribution of foreign films within its
jurisdiction and why the present government is dragging its feet
on amendments to the Copyright Act.
In the last round of GATT negotiations, we are told, culture
had a narrow escape. The Americans' push for unanimous
agreement that culture is a product like any other and should be
exempt from national and international regulation failed
because of the forceful intervention of France, supported by the
European Economic Community.
In this last-ditch attempt to save cultural expression and the
democracy of ideas, Canada played a minor role, overshadowed
by our cousins from France. The current government, need I
remind you, belatedly supported the agreement after a period of
guilty silence. This attitude reveals Canada's position on the
whole issue of culture.
The Ginn Publishing affair reveals just as much about
Canada's position on protecting our cultural development.
Under the Free Trade Agreement and NAFTA, the Canadian
government can take measures to protect its publishing and
book industry. This provision was designed to allow the
Canadian government to maintain its policy on foreign
investment in publishing.
Why did the Minister of Heritage agree to sell Ginn
Publishing? By enacting a law on foreign investment, the
Canadian government had given itself a tool to protect the
Canadian publishing industry. Yet, the Minister of Heritage
ratified the americanization of one of our publishing houses
with a smile and his proverbial naivety. This minister submitted
to our neighbour's blows by willingly abandoning what nothing
was forcing him to relinquish.
Do you really believe that, in the current circumstances, we
can trust this minister to protect our country's culture in the next
round of multilateral negotiations?
Cases like that of Ginn Publishing make us wonder about what
many call the ``secret clauses'' of the Free Trade Agreement. Is
it normal that, in a democratic country, our government makes
its decisions not by consulting Parliament and the people in
accordance with its own laws, but under pressure from other
countries?
7487
Some observers noted that Canada's lack of involvement in
the GATT multilateral negotiations was due to the fact that it
considers its cultural sector as already protected by the FTA and
NAFTA. But, as we know, this protection is limited by the fear
of retaliation from the American giant, by verbal agreements
that leave traces and by the Canadian government's
unwillingness to stand up in promoting this country's culture.
(1215)
Furthermore, Carla Hills told Congress that GATT had
precedence over the FTA, that there was therefore no cause for
concern about this concession to Canadians. I should point out
that she said this to the U.S. Congress. In fact, the FTA has
precedence over GATT. Still, this statement by the woman who
was in charge of FTA negotiations for the American side says a
lot about the relative importance given to this agreement by the
U.S. and their intention of re-opening it in the future.
Let us go back to the last round of GATT negotiations, which
addressed for the first time the issue of intellectual property.
The bill before us today contains some 20 clauses on copyrights.
As with the rest of the bill, these amendments are proposed to
make our Copyright Act comply with the agreements in the
Trade Related Aspects of International Property Rights, a
document containing the rules of the World Trade Organization,
including those related to copyright.
These changes are minor, to be sure. They create only one new
right: they allow the performing artist to authorize or refuse to
permit the recording and broadcast of his performance. The
remaining clauses on copyright are intended to update our
Copyright Act by including the agreements in Trade Related
Aspects of International Property Rights and the provisions of
the Universal Copyright Convention, to which this international
agreement refers.
As examples of these changes, note the clarifications made to
the definitions of ``infringing'' and ``performance''.
Accordingly, industrial piracy and trade in illegally copied
merchandise will be limited.
The changes imposed by international trade are
commendable. Nevertheless, they put the Canadian
government's inaction on copyright on the national agenda.
Phase II of the Copyright Act review was planned for last spring.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage, who appeared before the
Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage on May 4, said this:
``I have said right from the beginning, probably even when I
became responsible for this portfolio, that our copyright
legislation is out of date. There has not been any major change
for many years. It is not even fully in keeping with the
international agreements on copyrights. We need an overhaul.
We are working on it. We have teams of people doing an
examination of all this. They are doing the economic impact
studies and extensive consultations -I am quite determined to
see amendments to the Copyright Act before too long''.
But like everyone in the cultural community in Canada and
Quebec, we are still waiting for this Copyright Act. This delay is
tragic. Of course, it is tragic for our working artists who for ten
years or so have been calling for major changes to this law. It is
also tragic because we suspect that this delay could be due to the
difference of opinion between the Department of Industry and
the Department of Canadian Heritage.
On December 22, 1993, the Union des artistes wrote this to the
Prime Minister: ``The Copyright Act is now being reviewed
-Under the previous government, there was an obstacle to the
harmonious review of that legislation: The sharing of
responsibility between the Department of Canadian Heritage
and the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. That
arrangement led to a dual vision which, more often than not,
resulted in contradictory objectives. That act is the only one
protecting the right of Canadian creators''.
As for the Minister of Canadian Heritage, he said on CBC
radio that he did not really know what the content of phase II of
the legislation on copyright would be, and that there would
probably be a phase III. It seems that the heritage minister no
longer has any authority to impose his views on that issue. He
finds himself in a weak and isolated position in his wrestling
match with the Minister of Industry. This is truly tragic,
considering that it is incumbent upon that department to protect
the cultural interests of Canada.
The government resorts to a stopgap measure, namely Bill
C-57, to make up for the tragic and unacceptable delay. The
Department of International Trade is trying to ensure that the
current act is in compliance with international agreements.
I want to emphasize the importance of cultural development
for a society.
(1220)
The role of the department in this issue is crucial and vital.
Why? Because, as evidenced by the Ginn episode, as evidenced
now by the government's apathy regarding the review of the
Copyright Act, and as evidenced also by what observers called a
very close call with GATT, the right to culture, on one hand, and
economic considerations, on the other hand, are on a collision
course. And if the Minister of Canadian Heritage does not start
creating strategic alliances right now, it is not only Canadian
cultural industries which will be in jeopardy, but also
democracy itself.
To understand that, we have to define culture. We could, of
course, quote several authors. Let us take the definition given by
British sociologist Raymond Williams, whom authors Marc
Raboy, Yvan Bernier, Florian Sauvageau and Dave Atkinson
quote in their book Développement culturel et mondialisation de
l'économie: ``At various times and in various contexts, the term
culture has been used in one of three ways. First, it may refer to a
general process of intellectual, spiritual and aesthetic
development; second, it may describe the way of life of a people
or a
7488
group in a specific location or time; third, it may refer to the
activities of artists or intellectuals in a given society''.
Except for the last definition, which only applies to cultural
producers, it appears that culture includes a wide array of
information and knowledge which allow individuals to develop
(including through education, as shown by Williams' first
definition), to adjust and to play a role in their community (as
shown by the author's second definition). From this viewpoint,
it would seem that artists and intellectuals as well as cultural
producers not only participate in the intellectual, spiritual and
aesthetic development of individuals, but also help create an
awareness of their living environment. This shows the
importance of their activity, which comes under all three
definitions of culture according to Williams.''
Canadian economist Michael Walker also gives the following
definition, and I quote: ``What we refer to as culture is simply a
society-wide summation of the individual choices people
make''.
From this perspective, culture is essentially demand as
expressed by the markets. This definition puts less emphasis on
cultural content, as a set of information and knowledge, than on
the mechanism that promotes culture, namely a market free of
any restrictions.
To compare the definitions provided by Williams and Walker
is somewhat of a joke, but it goes to show the conflict between
sociological and economic approaches to culture, and
particularly the historical conflict between economy and culture
which has characterized to this day the evolution of
industrialized nations.
To conclude, the proposed amendments to the Copyright Act
are imposed upon us from the outside, as a result of multilateral
trade agreements signed by Canada. Are we going to let foreign
countries decide what is good for Canada in terms of culture or
will we pass legislation that reflects our directions, our wishes
and those of our creative artists as well as the needs of our
cultural industry, which promotes Canadian and Quebec talent?
The Bloc Quebecois has made a choice and opted for the cultural
sovereignty of this country.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first
of all, I would like to heartily congratulate my colleague from
Rimouski-Témiscouata on the excellent speech she just gave
us. I find it quite revealing that she could make a twenty-minute
speech dealing specifically with the cultural issue of the
Uruguay Round accords and their applications to Canada.
She presented some facts on the implications of the Uruguay
Round accord for culture in Canada and more specifically for
copyright in Canada. Once again, I find it quite revealing that
international trade agreements force us to make some
adjustments to Canada's copyright law.
(1225)
For months, my colleague has been clamoring for the federal
government to legislate clearly on the issue of copyright. Is
there not some ambiguity, a problem when the federal
government is forced by international trade agreements to act or
react on the subject of copyrights?
I put my question to the hon. member because I am sure that
she has some points to make about this. Personally, I am very
surprised that the federal government has taken so long to
legislate on copyrights and that it is doing so in a roundabout
way, when forced to by international agreements. Is this not
further proof that the present Minister of Canadian Heritage
lacks clout and credibility?
Mrs. Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that it is
imperative for Canada to legislate as soon as possible, calmly
and in all fairness with respect to copyright. Of course, this is a
very complex subject, but it will only increase in complexity as
we travel further on the electronic highway. It will be
complexified.
In terms of culture, I am particularly concerned when I hear
Mrs. Hills tell us that neither the FTA nor NAFTA afford us any
protection, while we had been led to believe they did. If indeed
we are not protected under these agreements and the GATT
agreement will prevail, this means in the short run that, before
we know it, Canada will have been invaded by the American
culture.
I would not want to be accused of trying to score political
points here, but it is high time that the people of Canada, from
Newfoundland to Vancouver Island, realize that the threat to
English Canada is much greater than the threat to the
francophone community in Quebec. The American culture is
much more of a threat to you than to us. We are French-speaking
and intend to remain so. That is why we want to leave this
country which is oblivious of the fact that it is going to the dogs.
Wake up, English Canada, before it is too late and you have
become Americans! Because we are your credit card, right now,
and we are about to cut your financing.
[English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I listened with
interest to the presentation and certainly would find areas of
agreement in it. However I have a real concern when I hear about
a bogeyman being out there in the world that is trying to close in
on us and shut us down. I am not quite sure what the member was
talking about concerning all the threats that exist outside the
country.
We are becoming a smaller and smaller world and in fact have
to start moving outward. We cannot stay looking in as we so
often hear the Bloc talking about. We cannot hold everything in
and keep everybody out.
7489
I would like to know from the member exactly what the
terrible threats are against our culture from outside the country
other than from the Americans.
[Translation]
Mrs. Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I think that the greatest threat
to any country comes from the United States of America.
Immediately after the war, the Americans sought to impose their
culture upon Europeans countries, which were flat broke coming
out from the war years.
The international response was: ``No way. We will not let
American films invade our market this easily''. And the famous
motion picture production agreement was signed.
When television broadcasting first started here, in Canada,
the Americans attempted once more to invade our market, going
as far as boycotting Canada for a while. But they eventually
realized that we were not giving in and that we were protected
against such an invasion by our regulations, so they accepted to
sit down and talk. What the Americans are doing now is trying
again, in a roundabout way, to impose their culture around the
world, from coast to coast, without forgetting anybody, because
they can afford to do this. And the day when only American
films, soaps, news and variety programs can be seen around the
world, this world of ours will no longer be a democratic world
because democracy starts up here, in your head.
(1230)
[English]
Mr. Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, I guess I am fairly
shocked at that answer, that the terrible threat out there are the
Americans.
I certainly cannot imagine why any part of Canada would
want to separate. Obviously the rest of Canada is going to look
less favourably on a province that would separate because it
would destroy the country we believe in.
Then it will be forced to deal with the Americans and let them
totally dominate its culture. The best way I see for Quebec to
lose its culture is the threat of separation when it would be
totally dependent on the United States.
I guess I just totally do not understand the answer that I just
got to my question.
[Translation]
Mrs. Tremblay: It is quite simple, Mr. Speaker. We are
francophones, while the Americans are English-speaking. We
do not tune in to American stations. We watch the French CBC
network, TVA and TQS, mostly because programs produced in
Quebec is of such superior quality, as compared to American
and English Canadian productions, that we feel no need to check
what is on in English to spend a lovely evening in front of the
TV. We watch our shows. In addition, we have concluded
agreements with the international French-speaking community
and gained access to TV5. We are happy with this. But English
Canadians are asleep. They do not realize that the American
cultural steam roller is at their door. Too bad for them if they
would rather sleep and become Americans. As far as we are
concerned, we plan to remain Quebecers and so we will, by
leaving this sleeping country.
[English]
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my privilege and honour to be in the House today
to address Bill C-57.
Just before I start my address I would like to make a couple of
comments on the debate I have heard this morning. I have
travelled quite a bit and I think culture is very important. I have
never had the opportunity to meet a cow that speaks French or a
chicken that speaks French or English. I have had different
cultures fry bacon and eggs for me in the morning and I have
always enjoyed them no matter with what type of vocabulary
they were prepared.
I think this is something that sometimes overshadows the
problems we really have. It is always important to me that we
address the real issues and make sure those things that help us to
survive or give us the opportunity to live in this country are not
destroyed.
As we know, this bill implements Canada's full participation
in the World Trade Organization. This is the result of our signing
the Uruguay round agreement on the GATT in April this year.
The Uruguay round agreement was the largest and the most
complex trade negotiation ever undertaken. The final package
included more than 25 separate agreements. The nations that
signed this agreement have made commitments to eliminate
tariffs and other barriers to trade.
From Canada's standpoint this makes it necessary to amend at
least 31 different statutes. Each country will have to amend its
subsidy and support programs and its border control measures in
order to harmonize them with an overall world standard.
Reductions will occur in the volume of subsidized exports.
(1235 )
These must be reduced by 21 per cent over a six-year period
ending in the year 2001. Our country's expenditures on export
subsidies must be reduced by 36 per cent over that same
six-year period.
With a minimum reduction of 15 per cent for each commodity
domestic support programs must also be reduced by 20 per cent
over the six-year period. Regional development, research,
environmental protection and farm income protection programs
are exempt from this.
7490
The system of quotas in supply management sectors will be
replaced by tariffs that will be lowered an average of 36 per cent
over the six years.
I must agree that supply management has very good
protection under this tariffication program. I will generally limit
my comments to the areas for which I am responsible as the
Reform Party critic. They are the areas of agriculture,
transportation and agriculture trade. These are truly areas where
the nations that took part in this agreement have worked toward
establishing a common set of rules to standardize their
industries.
The Reform Party is very much pro free trade. We supported
the free trade agreement with the United States and we support
further extension of free trade in general through the NAFTA
and the GATT.
With agreement on the Uruguay round I think we can look
forward to more economic growth around the world. This will in
turn lead to more investment and more jobs. About 50 per cent of
Canadian farmers revenues are generated by exports. That
means the agriculture sector will definitely benefit from
increased access to foreign markets and from reductions in trade
distorting subsidies in other countries which are the major
reasons for low world grain prices.
The Reform Party supports several transportation reforms.
The underlying principle on which we base our reforms is the
belief that Canadian agriculture products should move to market
by any expeditious mode, any route in any form or state of
processing based exclusively on the principle of cost
effectiveness and with the best interests of the consumer in
mind.
This is one reason I have been a very strong supporter of the
Hudson Bay Route Association in promoting the port of
Churchill. When I look at the distance to Churchill and to the
other ports I realize how much saving there is as far as rail line
maintenance is concerned.
When I see statistics, and these are done by different
investigations or task forces, that we could cut our costs of
transportation by about $20 to $25 a tonne, I think it is not only
cost effective but also environmentally friendly.
The other thing we have to realize is that we have a huge north
in Manitoba where the native people depend on this type of
transportation.
We should be striving to develop an atmosphere that provides
for a viable, self-reliant market driven industry by creating an
environment in which regional development is eliminated as a
goal of transportation policy.
We support elimination of transportation subsidies but the
funds should be redirected systematically to comprehensive
safety net programs that are designed to defend Canada's food
producers against matters over which they have little control.
We cannot eliminate transportation subsidies altogether
without a definite long range plan to help the industry adjust
accordingly. By reallocating the funds and paying them to
farmers as part of a GATT-green program we can allow our
economy to diversify and can give farmers the opportunity to
take advantage of the market forces of the new international
trading agreement.
(1240 )
One thing that was really impressive to me the other day when
the former agriculture minister, Mr. Whelan, was a witness
before the standing committee was how we have lost our
secondary industries, our processors and are killing plants due
to transportation problems and other types of subsidies.
It is of the utmost importance that we try to resolve that
problem. Canada should endeavour to create a genuinely
competitive transportation system. To achieve this end the
deregulation of the railway system and the privatization of
Canadian national rolling stock should be clearly defined goals.
I do not know what the answers are but when I looked at the
speech that the transportation minister delivered the other day,
seeing that the labour force is only 64 per cent as efficient on our
rail lines as it is in the United States, I know that subsidies are
not the only problem. When I also see the United States
transports 66 per cent more freight per rail mile than we do, we
also know there is another problem of moving the products in
the most expeditious way.
In the area of grains, oilseeds and special crops, Canadian
producers should benefit from a more stable trading
environment. Greater opportunities for exports and hopefully
international prices will increase over the six year
transportation period. With the volumes of subsidized wheat
exported from the United States and the European union
expected to be reduced 40 per cent over the next six years,
significant market shares should open up for Canadian farmers.
Once this agreement goes into effect, the United States will no
longer be able to use section 22 against imports of Canadian
wheat. I would note however that these trade agreements can
mean little if the government does not have the fortitude to back
them up. We have seen other GATT agreements and they have all
been broken by the bigger trade partners. As Canadians that is
one thing we have to be very concerned about.
We look back to the wheat pact this government not only
agreed to with the U.S. but imposed on itself. We see an example
of where we were within our rights under the free trade
agreement but were bullied away. Article 705.5 of the
Canada-U.S. free trade agreement states clearly that the cross
border grain shipments can be restricted only if they increase
significantly as
7491
a result of a substantial change in either country's support
programs for the grain in question. That was not the case last
year.
Increases in wheat and durum to the U.S. last year were the
result of an increased demand in the U.S. resulting from many
factors. There was definitely no increase in Canadian support
programs. This government agreed to surrender anyway. Mere
days after this wheat pact occurred we saw the United States
sign a wheat deal with Algeria with what had been a major
Canadian market, export enhancement durum. The disturbing
influence of the United States export enhancement program
always allows it to distort grain markets.
If the Canadian government had not buckled under the U.S.
pressure, its senators, congressmen and farmers would soon
have realized how detrimental the export enhancement program
really was. Canadian farmers would only have recouped a small
percentage of damage done by the U.S. unfair trade practices.
Hopefully we will see it align its harmful subsidy program
under the terms of this agreement. I would point out that
although this was a bilateral dispute, there are provisions in the
new rules for GATT that would force the United States to prove
Canada was unfairly subsidizing exports.
Hopefully this provision will be helpful in avoiding the
capitulation that we have seen in the past from our government.
This was brought home again last week when the United States
department of agriculture began to require that Canadian wheat
farmers who export into the U.S. have end user certificates. This
despite the fact that the wheat pact signed with the U.S. included
a peace clause that stipulated that Canada would be free from
further restrictions or harassment for 12 months.
(1245)
It is just another example of how trade agreements are useless
if the government seems either unable or disinterested in
standing up for the rights of its citizens. A partner in a trade
agreement cannot be allowed to be a bully. If this is allowed, the
agreement will fall apart sooner or later.
All that Canadian farmers really want is a level playing field.
They know they can compete and be the best in the world at
producing, but they cannot be expected to continue to be at a
disadvantage in trading situations. With a fair set of trade rules
that apply equally to all countries across the board, we can
achieve that level playing field.
Before these changes can take effect there will have to be
major changes to the Western Grain Transportation Act. Any
government policy that favours export shipments is deemed as
an export subsidy by the GATT. Canada has maintained that the
Western Grain Transportation Act provides internal support to
farmers, but some countries, including the United States, insist
that it provides export assistance.
Recent studies confirm that it will be viewed as an export
subsidy by the GATT. This point emphasizes that the shortest
route to an export port is the best route. Under the agreement
there will be two systems governing WGTA subsidy
restrictions; one will be for grain shipped through Vancouver,
Prince Rupert or Churchill. This is specifically export grain that
is subject to an export reduction subsidy under the GATT.
The second system is for grain shipped through Thunder Bay
or Armstrong. This is deemed as grain for export or for domestic
use, and therefore the transportation payments for grain
movements under the WGTA can be considered either an export
subsidy or domestic support, depending on which shipping route
is used.
This clause seems to me to set up a recipe for a tremendous
amount of conflict and disagreement. It can only be a
detrimental clause in this agreement and will probably cause a
lot of hard feelings, not just between producers but also between
shippers in the different regions.
WGTA payments on grain that travels through the west ports
are contingent on that grain being exported. The GATT was
notified that these payments were export subsidies and will be
subject to the reduction commitment of 36 per cent for export
subsidies and also the 21 per cent reduction in the volume.
WGTA payments on grain shipped through Thunder Bay have
been notified to the GATT as green domestic support.
I do not know how we can resolve that issue. I think it will be
challenged and history will tell us that it is improper and we will
have to address it.
According to the GATT text the total Western Grain
Transportation program is an amber domestic support program,
while the portion related to grain movement to the west coast
and Churchill is considered an export subsidy. Canada will have
to make according changes to address the export subsidy
provisions of the GATT.
The challenge for Canada is to make the WGTA GATT-green.
The Reform Party had addressed this problem very well with a
trade distortion program that we recommended for WGTA
during the election campaign. It was well received. I think the
government will sooner or later have to realize that this type of
program is the only one that will really be fair and beneficial to
western farmers.
(1250 )
Since the GATT requires a change in the WGTA subsidy
payment method from paying the railways to paying directly to
farmers, it is likely the only method that would comply with
GATT requirements.
7492
This is another area where the Liberal government will have
to be tremendously diligent and innovative. It has to find a way
to pay that subsidy out so that it does not distort the value of
land, it does not distort taxation to municipalities because we
could be find a number of different real problems.
As I stated, under GATT countries have agreed to reduce their
export subsidies by 36 per cent. There are several questions that
arise in this bill. I know that farmers in my riding will have a
number of concerns.
For example, what safeguards are there for farmers that the
railways will be obligated to move grain to other ports? Also,
what safeguards do we have that our rail cars will not be going to
the United States?
Last year was a disaster for grain transportation. One of the
main factors was that the railways decided to chase business in
the United States. With the longer car turnaround cycle, this
took needed grain cars out of the picture and caused serious
ramifications. What assurance do we have that this will not be
repeated?
There are also reports that the railways do not have enough
engines. I would like to know if anyone has looked especially at
this problem. We have the rail cars but we do not have the
engines to pull them. That does not give us a very effective
transportation system.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Prince Albert-Churchill River,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to know this. You indicated
earlier in your speech that grain or whatever agricultural
product is being transported should be moved by whatever
means to whatever destination that the market sees fit.
At the end of your speech, you are criticizing the rail
companies for-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I would like to
interrupt for a brief moment to remind members to make all
interventions through the Chair and not directly to each other
across the floor of the House.
Mr. Kirkby: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentions that the
market should determine by what mode of transportation grain
or agricultural products should be shipped. Near the end of his
speech he indicates that there is a shortage of grain cars because
the companies have decided to use them to ship grain into the
United States. It would suggest that he has been quite
inconsistent in his approach and I would like him to explain the
inconsistency.
Mr. Hoeppner: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I was inconsistent
in my remarks. The reason why these grain cars have been
diverted to the United States is that under the Western Grain
Transportation Act the railways get paid on the amount of grain
they move.
However if we do not have the engines to pull these cars, it
does not do us very much good to try to get the amount of cars on
the system that are needed. Therefore these cars that provincial
governments, the federal government and the wheat board
bought for the transportation system have been diverted across
to the U.S. to gain income. They could not be used in Canada
because of the lack of engine power.
It is financially beneficial to the railways to do that. Freight
rates in the United States, the pace at which they move their
cars, the time of turnaround for these cars are far superior to the
Canadian system.
We exported some grain last year and the agent who was
shipping that grain further down the line paid from $250 to $750
per car according to the need that he had for them. There was a
tremendous amount of incentive to move cars that the railways
could not use to the U.S. because of a lack of engine power and
benefit financially by probably millions and millions of dollars.
(1255)
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
wish to thank my colleague from Verchères for his excellent job
in directing the debate on Bill C-57. I want to point out at the
outset that the time has finally come to deal with the important
matter of GATT.
Bill C-57 allows us to question some aspects of this
agreement which remain what I would call grey areas. The
purpose of my comments is not to oppose this bill, but to raise
questions to show the members of this House that it is essential
that we have enough time to consider this bill before approving
it.
Quebecers have been open and in favour of free trade for a
long time. You will recall that Quebec stood alongside the U.S.
among the first free trade supporters and that, without their
support, Canada might have refused to sign the free trade treaty.
You certainly remember that, in the 1988 election, when the free
trade agreement with the U.S. was the main election plank of the
Conservative Party led by Mr. Mulroney, the former Tory leader
found his staunchest allies in Quebec.
Despite the misadventures encountered by the Conservative
Party during its first mandate, Quebecers gave their
overwhelming support to the Progressive Conservative Party
precisely because it advocated tree trade with the U.S. Quebec
showed consistency by greatly facilitating the signing of
NAFTA, and it now favours extending this agreement to other
countries in Latin America.
It is not hard to see the logic behind this attitude. It is crucial
for Quebec's small and medium-sized businesses to secure
access to larger markets. Like all Quebecers, I am prejudiced in
favour of free trade and therefore in favour of Bill C-57 before
us today. What I would like, however, is enough time to look at it
carefully, and the Liberal government's railroading of such an
important bill is unacceptable.
7493
When several major powers with sometimes conflicting
interests sit around the negotiating table, we realize how
difficult it is to please everyone. In the current economic
context, it is essential to agree on how to develop free trade
mechanisms. That is why this agreement can, if it is used
properly, provide a basis for future trade negotiations.
(1300)
The potential increase of $755 billion in international trade
between now and the year 2005 is the most convincing guarantee
of the positive impact of that agreement. The Final Act of the
Uruguay Round signed on April 15, in Marrakesh, meets some
of the expectations of Quebec and Canada. However, as regards
agricultural issues, that agreement is far from making Quebec
producers happy.
The structure of GATT has always differed from that of most
major UN agencies. Even though Canada was among the 23
original members, it is now at the same level as the other 107
member countries. It is at the mercy of talks dominated by three
major players: The United States, Japan and the European
Community.
Like all the other members, Canada is somewhat subjected to
the priorities and decisions of these giants, particularly the
United States and the European Community. Yet, when a sector
as important for Quebec and Canada as agriculture is targeted,
the federal government must react and stand up for our
producers.
Canada did very poorly when it came to protecting the
interests of agricultural producers, regarding article XI, because
it was trying to do two different things. Article XI essentially
allowed Ontario and Quebec dairy producers to benefit from
their supply management system. That initiative was obviously
extremely important to them. In the east, producers wanted to
keep their supply management programs, while in the west, they
wanted new markets for their grain. Given its political situation,
Canada tried to please both groups at the international level. In
the end, it lost some of its credibility and more. The government
found itself caught between a rock and a hard place.
As regards article XI, the government could not let down
Quebec producers in the current political context. On the other
hand, grain exports have very significant economic spin-offs.
When you negotiate, you have to make concessions in order to
make gains on those issues which are important to you.
However, in order to do that, you must first define your
priorities.
This example of double-edged sword is clear evidence that
we have to put our house in order. The problem is a major one.
How can only one voice protect the diverging interests of
western and eastern producers?
The fight on Article XI also undermined Canada's credibility
with its own agricultural producers. Indeed, the government
tried to be reassuring by explaining that, in the short term,
higher tariffs would provide producers subjected to quotas the
same protection as under article XI. However, the government
was silent on the medium term and the long term.
Even though the tariffs proposed by Canada to GATT were not
opposed, there is no guarantee that we will not find ourselves in
a perpetual trade dispute once they are implemented.
(1305)
However, during the bilateral talks on durum wheat, Canada
made concessions in order to avoid prolonging the dispute by
going before a panel.
What will Canada do when the Americans revive the debate
on quota production and tariffs on yogurt and ice cream, for
instance? Who will decide whether GATT or NAFTA takes
precedence? These issues are still unclear.
We need assurances that the government is prepared to answer
some very specific questions. You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that
during the last election campaign, in the fall of 1993, the Prime
Minister, the leader of the Liberal Party, was travelling across
Canada and saying: ``I will not sign NAFTA unless everything is
reviewed from A to Z. And I will negotiate''. A few weeks after
he was sworn in, the Prime Minister went on a short trip to the
United States, came back and quickly signed NAFTA.
Just another instance of the past being no guarantee of the
future.
What will Canada do when the Americans revive the debate
on yogurt and ice cream, for instance? Who will decide whether
GATT or NAFTA takes precedence?
We need assurances that the government is prepared to answer
some very specific questions. We must go to committee to
assess the impact of this bill. We must also keep abreast of steps
being taken by our principal trading partners to conform to
GATT. The Canadian government should be able to tell us, for
instance, whether it and the American government agree on the
definition of dumping.
Although we realize that our agricultural policies must
conform to our international trade agreements, the government
must not take advantage of our obligation to conform to GATT
to justify certain measures to reduce the deficit. In many cases,
Canada has already reduced its domestic subsidies by more than
20 per cent, which means that for this round of talks, it has met
its commitments for subsidy reduction.
If we look at the amendments to the WGTA to harmonize it
with GATT requirements, a number of issues are still
outstanding. We still do not know whether the Crow benefit will
be transferred to producers or how that will be done. This matter
should be dealt with immediately. The Minister of Transport,
who has been responsible for the Crow so far, announced last
7494
spring that he would not renew the subsidy. His colleague, the
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, was quick to announce
that his department would be responsible for the subsidy and
would, we may assume, make it more effective by making
certain changes.
Since that time, the minister has asked the Producer Payment
Panel to examine the question. This review led to
recommendations about which the minister has not said a word
yet. About the Crow's Nest Pass Rates, he told the magazine Le
Coopérateur last June: ``Although this problem has been around
for many years, we must, for various reasons, tackle it without
delay. Not the least of these reasons is the GATT Agreement''.
(1310)
We, however, still do not know anything about the minister's
intentions. It must also be pointed out that Quebec and Canada
will benefit from stronger trade regulations. In the last 15 years,
several member states, in particular our American neighbour
and the European Community, made excessive use of
protectionist measures. Clarifying the GATT regulations on the
definition of the types of subsidies that are allowed,
compensatory or prohibited and the use of countervailing and
anti-dumping duties largely favours an international system
based on relationships dictated by law rather than force. For
smaller states like Quebec and Canada, this strengthening of
trade regulations is a safeguard against giants like the United
States.
There may be many advantages to an agreement such as the
one we are discussing this afternoon. In any case, there is no
doubt that, given the internationalization of markets, we must
take our place on the international scene and take advantage of
trade treaties. Agriculture is only one component of the
agreement but its place in Quebec's and Canada's economy does
not allow us to minimize the impact of measures affecting this
sector. Losing Article XI will require us to restructure our
agricultural sector. However, only the future will tell us whether
these adjustments were worthwhile. I still think that the grey
areas or outstanding problems justify our asking that some
aspects of Bill C-57 be clarified in committee.
Furthermore, I find it hard to understand why it is so urgent to
conclude this debate when the two giants, the U.S. and Europe,
are taking their time. The Americans are moving slowly since
some members of Congress are in the middle of an election
campaign and this type of agreement is not very popular with
voters. Europeans, for their part, have turned this into a power
struggle between the European Commission and the Council of
Ministers. If this bill is really acceptable, why is it so urgent?
Mr. Speaker, thank you for your attention, and I must again in
closing point out that my colleague from Verchères is doing an
admirable job of dealing with this matter, for which he is
responsible, in order to defend Quebec's major interests.
(1315)
[English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have listened with considerable interest as the debate
has unfolded today. The Bloc speakers have been virtually
unanimous in their support of supply management.
Those who are consumers have an opinion of supply
management that is somewhat different from the opinion of
those who are producers. It depends whether they are getting
paid or are paying for the product under supply management.
Supply management in any other industry would be considered
price fixing.
Could the member comment on his perception in Quebec,
leaving aside the relationship between Quebec and the rest of the
country? Is it his opinion that supply management is a net
benefit and, if it is not a net benefit, given that consumers are
paying a premium for dairy products and poultry products their
costs of living are greatly increased?
[Translation]
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my
distinguished colleague from the Reform Party for his very
pertinent question. Nevertheless, as you know, three
agricultural sectors in Quebec are covered by supply
management: poultry, eggs and milk. Supply management in
these three fields is so well structured that every month
delegations from the UPA, the Quebec farmers' union, receive
invitations from other countries that want to know how we could
have set up such an effective supply management system.
Mr. Speaker, do you know that without this supply
management system in Quebec and in Ontario, no farmer could
make a living from producing poultry, eggs or milk? Why?
Because we would have been invaded by the Americans. Last
week, the president of the UPA told me that he visited a farm in
the United States that raises 100,000 steers a year. A hundred
thousand!
He told me that Quebec does not produce 100,000 steers a
year. Down there, a single huge farm produces more than
Quebec does. But once agriculture in Quebec and Ontario is
killed off, prices would not be set by government bodies in
Quebec or Ontario but by American farmers. The independence
of a country is at stake.
When a country cannot feed its people, it is weak. If we want a
strong country, this strength must be based on an agricultural
system that is competent, productive and also versatile. Thanks
to supply management, farmers enjoyed some security and
could invest and acquire farms and make them profitable. As for
milk production, because I am more familiar with this field, I
could tell my distinguished colleague that some farmers have
been bled white. They have mortgaged their farm to buy the
right to produce-they have bought quotas.
7495
This past weekend, I met one of these farmers, who estimates
that his quota is worth $750,000. Three quarters of a million
dollars and he is afraid that when the tariff system is well in
place, quotas will lose their value. Quotas could eventually
disappear.
(1320)
I have been asking the same question to Agriculture Canada
officials week after week. I even asked the agriculture
committee and I was told: ``Time will tell. One thing is sure: no
problem is to be expected for the first six years''. But what about
the seventh year or the tenth? When a farm producer has
borrowed huge amounts to buy this piece of paper allowing him
or her to have 25 or 30 more cows but is told: ``Look, ten years
from now, your $750,000 quota may not be worth a penny'', is
that reassuring? Would you find it encouraging, Mr. Speaker, if
you were told: ``Your pension plan that you have accumulated
here, at the House of Commons, will not be worth a penny, six or
seven years down the road''? This is hypothetical. It may be
worth something, but then again it may not. You would be
concerned, I am sure you would.
Farm producers need reassurance. When you see a farmer
with a production quota worth $1.5 million or $2 million and
they come and tell him: ``We expect no problem for the first six
years. Later on, we will have to see'', take my word for it, supply
management becomes awfully important.
On predatory pricing, I cannot say that I share the views of my
colleague from the Reform Party, which reflect a lack of
knowledge of the situation in Quebec. To get a one cent per litre
increase, milk producers have to go before a Quebec
government agency called dairy commission where consumer
associations, the farm producers association and the Dairies'
Association are represented, and negotiate. ``Our production
costs are such and such, and there has been no increase in the
past six months to a year''. Consumers say that milk already
costs too much and that its price should be reduced, not
increased. Farmers want a five-cent increase. And then you
have UPA representatives trying to come up with a compromise.
Finally, farmers ask for a five-cent increase and often get only a
one-cent increase.
So, if you come to Quebec or to Ontario, you will realize that
farmers do not work 40 hours a week and then rest. They usually
work seven days a week, 365 days a year, along with all their
family, and still cannot afford to spend three weeks or a whole
month in Florida or in Europe. They have to stay on their farm to
operate it.
I would now like to give my view of the outlook for supply
management. Of course, I would like the government to stand up
and tell us what will happen to supply management six or seven
years down the road. Farmers have the right to know. In fact,
they represent the class of workers in Quebec for whom we
should have the most respect. According to statistics for all of
Canada, the people who work on farms are those who work the
highest number of hours in Canada.
On average, Quebec farmers work more hours than other
Canadian farmers, precisely because we have a more diversified
agriculture.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to make a brief comment.
I am a bit overwhelmed by the very eloquent speech that we
just heard from the hon. member for Frontenac. My colleague
focused on what was, I think, the main problem for Canada in the
Uruguay Round, namely the double talk used by the federal
government in trying to protect the interests of producers in
Canada and Quebec, those of grain producers from the western
provinces on one hand and those of poultry and dairy farmers
and other producers on the other hand.
(1325)
It must be said that this double talk, this double standard still
exists today. The problem is still there and it became obvious
when we asked the government very recently, as my colleague
was saying, which rules would have precedence, the NAFTA
rules or the GATT rules, with regard to tariffs on dairy products,
poultry, etc.
The problem that exists right now is related to the fear of
seeing that western grain production will be played off against
Quebec's egg, milk and poultry production in future
negotiations with the United States. At the present time, the
United States imposes limits on Canadian grain imports and the
Canadian government could very well be tempted to reduce the
tariffs that will be imposed on Quebec's agricultural products in
the place of quotas in order to obtain greater access to the
American market.
The Canadian government could be tempted to reduce its
tariffs in order to open the American market to Canadian grain.
The danger is there and the double talk to which the hon.
member for Frontenac was referring still exists. It is important
to note that we are well aware of the problem and that we will
watch the government very closely on this issue.
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the
hon. member for Verchères, is absolutely right. This reminded
me of what my Reform Party colleague said earlier about high
prices.
I went shopping with my wife on Friday evening and I saw
Prince Edward Island potatoes at a price which was
exceptionally high for the season. Three years ago, there was an
oversupply of potatoes in New Brunswick. The Canadian and
New Brunswick governments of the time bought the potatoes to
bury them in an open dump. On the CBC news, they showed us
hundreds and hundreds of thousands of tons of potatoes being
bulldozed
7496
into a hole while we could have fed the starving people of the
world with those vegetables.
To support the price of potatoes, our two governments had
bought the farmers' production. They deliberately kept the
potatoes from being marketed precisely to create scarcity.
Sometimes we talk about environmental protection. Well it is
certainly not very clever to bury potatoes, and not even make
compost, when you think there are millions of people, tens of
millions of people who cannot even eat a meal a day. And here,
in New Brunswick, three years ago, we buried hundreds and
hundreds of thousands of tons of potatoes.
When we talked about supply management, do you not think
that a supply management system for potatoes would have been
much better? Of course in Quebec, we could produce 25 per cent
more milk if we wanted to. But why produce 25 per cent more
milk if you cannot sell it?
[English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak in the debate.
I always enjoy the interventions of my hon. colleague from
Frontenac. I should point out to him that I believe the potatoes to
which he was referring that were buried in Prince Edward Island
were not buried to support a price. They were seed potatoes and
there was a problem. There was a potential for disease and in
order to protect the integrity of Prince Edward Island seed
potatoes, which is among the highest in the world, it was
determined that it would be best to do away with the potatoes. It
was not a question of price fixing.
(1330 )
I also thought this might be the crowning glory and
achievement of the Bloc. We have heard a lot of statements from
the Bloc in this House from time to time, some statements more
or less preposterous than others. I have to tell you when the hon.
member for Frontenac said that we have to protect supply
management because the farmers in Quebec worked harder than
any other farmers, I mean that was it. How does he know? I
really do believe that farmers as people and business persons in
our country do work very long hours, but don't we all? I really
do not think the farmers in Quebec work any harder than the
farmers anywhere else in the country.
An hon. member: How can you know?
Mr. McClelland: Obviously I cannot know. I just do not think
that is one contest we need to get into. This debate has been most
enlightening today because we have an interesting separation.
We are talking about whether or not Canada should sign into
the World Trade Organization. The actual title of this bill is the
World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act. It is
at the second reading stage. We support this bill.
There is a truism about being competitive: If you do not
compete, you cannot be competitive. Therefore we have to have
within our psyche the desire to compete and to be competitive.
That is the dichotomy which has come in this debate thus far
today. There are members of the Bloc who are by and large
supportive of the notion of free trade and expanded trade, but
with a severe reservation because of its impact on supply
management.
It is fair to say that as a result of the implementation of the
GATT agreement supply management will have seen the last of
its days in Canada. Let there be no mistake: Supply management
is price fixing. If it was supply management of photo finishing,
it would be called price fixing. If it was supply management of
shoe manufacturing, it would be called price fixing.
Supply management creates a situation whereby a limited
number of producers have access to the market exclusive of
anyone else. They are thereby provided a guaranteed return on
their investment. What happens of course as a result of that is
that everybody else who makes a living based on that investment
also has a guaranteed return on their investment, the feed
suppliers, the implement suppliers, everyone down the line. You
know who gets it in the neck? Mr. and Mrs. Joe Consumer in the
land.
If we want a situation where we are going to have industries
which are non-competitive, where we are going to have winners
and losers in society picked not by the marketplace but by the
government, then supply management is a textbook illustration
on how to do it. Therefore, one of the main beneficial and most
important things that will come as a result of signing this
agreement will be the ordered timely end of supply
management.
This whole exercise as many people know started in 1944. It
was called the Bretton Woods agreement. It was determined that
at the conclusion of the second world war it might not be a bad
idea if the nations of the world figured out some sort of an
arrangement whereby they could learn to trade with each other
under certain rules and conditions that might help to prevent
future wars. That was essentially the reason behind the United
Nations and the Bretton Woods agreement.
Three major decisions were reached at Bretton Woods in
1944. They were the International Monetary Fund, the
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and
the International Trade Organization.
The International Trade Organization did not really get off the
ground but the successor, which is the GATT, did. To most
people GATT is an obscure term. It stands for General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. It really has a tremendous
impact on the lives of all Canadians daily. It is not just an
obscure international agreement that we are signing. It is an
agreement that will fundamentally change the way we function
as a nation.
7497
As Canada goes forward into the next century it is perhaps a
very timely agreement for us to be signing.
(1335)
We should compare our nation today with our nation when we
got involved in the free trade agreement. Going back to the time
when we got into free trade with the United States it was a major
leap of faith for most Canadians. It said we were going to start to
break down the trade barriers within Canada and start competing
on our own as a nation within the world.
First we had to compete with the United States. Then we went
to the North American free trade agreement in which we decided
we were going to compete with the United States and Mexico.
Now we are going one step further with the GATT which means
we will be competing sooner or later with everyone in the world.
What does that mean to us here in Canada? How does it affect
us when we are trying to get by, trying to get a job, trying just to
pay our rent? This is it. If we are not the very best that we can be,
if we do not as a nation and as individuals strive for excellence,
we are going to be buried in the world. We can no longer hide
behind tariff barriers.
The tariff barriers in Canada existed for years and years. They
created artificial subsidies. The unnatural but natural
conclusion were things like the back-in agreements or the
backflow where empty grain cars go to Thunder Bay and then
come back so that the railways can get a subsidy, so they can get
more money for some God forsaken government program. We
have the situation where grain grown in western Canada is
subsidized to be shipped east. It goes into a feedlot in central
Canada so that we can sell beef raised in central Canada on
western grain rather than having the beef fattened on western
grain in western Canada and then sending dressed beef to the
markets, a natural advantage.
All of these distortions that are built into our trade agreements
within our own country serve one purpose only: to make us less
competitive on the world stage. That is why it is so important
that we as Canadians in the present supply managed sectors and
all other sectors understand the absolute necessity of becoming
competitive as world traders.
A quarter of our nation's wealth is derived from international
trade. Eighty per cent of our international trade is with the
United States. Twenty-five per cent of that trade is internal trade
within branch plants.
In last Saturday's Globe and Mail there was a business report
from the Royal Bank. I will just show it very briefly for those in
television land-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. With all due
respect to all those people in television land, within the confines
of this wonderful Chamber we do not use ``props''. We will
listen attentively to the wisdom of the hon. member for
Edmonton Southwest.
Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, I thought I might be able to
sneak that in because I wanted to give credit where credit was
due. Less attentive Speakers have allowed me that privilege, but
I can see you are on your toes today.
In any event distributed with the Globe and Mail last Saturday
was a report by the Royal Bank.
(1340 )
This might be a good time to put in a plug for the industry
committee of the House of Commons which has put together a
report on small business. I think most members of Parliament
have been inundated with innovative initiatives by all of the
banks to try to foster small business.
In any event the Royal Bank publication points out some of
the benefits and some of the realities of the trade situation we
find ourselves in. The reason I would like to quote some of these
statistics is that the signing of the GATT and our commitment to
become international traders will inevitably lead to the fact that
we had better pay a lot more attention to the next generation of
Canadians so that they can compete on a world stage. The next
generation of Canadians will compete because of their
knowledge based resources.
We in Canada have been very fortunate. We have been blessed
for many years. We were able to live a standard of living far
beyond our means because we exploited Canada's natural
resources. By and large we were the suppliers to the world of
natural resources at a relatively low price, but it brought a
tremendous amount of wealth into Canada. We were then able to
transfer that wealth into the social programs we have all grown
very accustomed to and that we really like. The problem is that
we are no longer such an exporting nation. We do not have the
resources to export and we have not replaced them with anything
else.
Let me give an example. One-quarter of our national wealth is
derived from international trade. One-third of our jobs depend
on international trade. Nine thousand new jobs result from every
billion dollars of additional exports. Nearly half of Canada's
manufacturing output is exported. Exports generate more than
$5,000 for every Canadian every year. That is really kind of
nice.
This is what we are exporting and this is where the problem is:
passenger cars, $24.1 billion; trucks, $10.5 billion; motor
vehicle parts, excluding engines, $9.6 billion; softwood lumber,
$9.2 billion; and crude petroleum, $6.9 billion. Where do you
see anything there other than the automobile industry that we
have any value added?
7498
In Alberta we have spent zillions of dollars building one of the
neatest pulp mills you have ever seen. It is one of the least
polluting mills ever made. The problem is that we cut our trees
down and we get something like 25 cents value for every tree
that goes into that pulp mill. We turn that pulp into a finished
product, bleached so that we get the environmental problems
down the road, and we send that to Japan and buy it back as
finished paper, as fine paper.
I learned earlier today from my hon. colleague from
Lisgar-Marquette that Canada used to export a tremendous
amount of milled flour to Japan. We do not any more. We export
wheat to Japan. The Japanese mill it and then they sell it around
the world. How is it we can get ourselves into a situation where
we still end up being the purveyors of raw materials? We have to
get the tertiary secondary manufacturing or we cannot allow our
raw materials to be exploited any more in the same manner
which was just fine for 30 or 40 years. Things have changed and
we just cannot do that any more.
I mentioned a few minutes earlier about some of our primary
exports. Our primary imports are motor vehicle parts excluding
engines, $18 billion; passenger cars, $11.9 billion; electronic
computers, $9 billion; crude petroleum, $4.6 billion; electronic
tubes and semi-conductors, that sort of thing; $4.5 billion.
(1345)
Therefore, basically through the auto pact, when we start
talking about how great an exporter we are, we are great
exporters if we are talking about the auto pact where we export
and import and we are great exporters when we start talking
about wheat or petroleum.
However, we are not great exporters when we are talking
about anything that has value added. This is where we as a nation
have a real problem, especially coming into the next generation.
I had a letter from a constituent the other day saying the
difference between a politician and a statesman is that a
politician thinks about the next election, a statesman thinks
about the next generation.
Perhaps we in this Parliament have to start thinking as
statesmen, not about the next election but about the next
generation. We have a serious problem here. How do we go
about competing on a world stage?
Think about internal trade barriers that exist now within
Canada. We do not have the ability or the resolve as Canadians
to get rid of these trade barriers within Canada that exist today.
When we were negotiating the North American free trade
agreement with the United States and Mexico there were three
players around the table: Canada, the United States and Mexico.
When we were trying to break down the trade barriers within
Canada, how many players were around the table-all the
provinces and the federal government.
If we as Canadians are prepared to take the bull by the horns
and break down these trade barriers we may have to go into a
situation and say: ``We are the federal government. We represent
Canadians. We do not represent Albertans. We do not represent
people from Ontario or Quebec. We represent the national
interest. These trade barriers are killing us. They are killing our
ability to compete internationally. It is time to get them out of
here. You guys have exactly one year to get rid of your trade
barriers. If you have not done it and negotiated an end to them
within a year, kiss them goodbye because they are gone. They
are out of there''.
If we do not have the kind of resolve that will do it, how can
we compete internationally if we cannot compete within our
own country, within our own borders? It is essential that before
we take on the world as these trade barriers come down, as the
tariffication takes effect and the tariff barriers start to come
down, we ensure that we are competitive within our own
country.
It means that we have to first of all eliminate the
interprovincial trade barriers. It means we have to ensure that
our taxes are as low as any tax regime in the world. How do we
go about doing that? We make sure that they are fair and that we
do not use tax incentives that distort the marketplace.
It means that we do not use the tax money paid by someone
earning $10 or $12 or $8 an hour, barely getting by, take it into
government and then regurgitate it, give it to somebody else to
go into business with the person who paid the taxes in
competition with the person who paid the taxes in the first place.
It means that we have to lower the cost of being a Canadian.
We have to be competitive in the world and it means that we
have to make some very strategic investment decisions in the
future. It means that we have to ensure that we are not only the
sources of ideas, we have to be the innovators and the
implementors.
We cannot just have a brainwave, invent something and have
that innovative idea brought to the market by Americans or by
the Japanese or the Germans.
(1350 )
It is going to be a new relationship between the innovators, the
entrepreneurs, government, education and business. It is a
whole new attitude so that we in our nation will honour, revere
and bring to some degree of respect innovators and
entrepreneurs who would at least be on the same level as a
hockey player.
It is important. Think about it. Someone in our country who is
a great business person, a great entrepreneur, a great innovator, a
scientist-who do we know? Are they our heroes? No, they
certainly are not. Somebody who can put 50 goals into a net or
play baseball at all is a hero. It is a quantum change in the whole
way we think about ourselves and what is worthwhile in our
nation.
7499
We know that our new economy is not going to work if we try
to replicate what we did in the past. Going into the new economy
we can do so with confidence because we can compete on a
world scale. We can only do it if we strive for excellence in
everything we do.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as always I enjoy listening to
the member when he speaks on the economy.
I would like to focus on a very specific remark that the
member made in his speech. The member said that we must
make strategic investments in ideas. Many years ago we as a
government made a strategic investment in the automobile
industry in this country.
We used taxpayers dollars to create a sector of the economy
that is recognized today to be one of the best in the world. We
can do joint ventures with Mercedes Benz, with the Japanese, et
cetera. We did make a strategic investment with taxpayers
dollars and the member acknowledged that strategic investment
in his remarks.
My question to the member is in what sectors of the economy
is he proposing that we make such strategic investments today?
Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, the strategic investment that
the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood refers to is the
auto pact. The auto pact came into being because we in Canada
were importing all of our automobiles from the United States.
We thought it would not be a bad idea that since we drive these
cars here we should make a few.
We ended up getting involved in the auto pact. The auto pact
almost died, as the hon. member would know. It was not easy for
the agreement to reach fruition. During those years-35 years
ago the auto pact came into being-that was in my opinion a
very worthwhile strategic investment.
What kinds of strategic investments should we be making
today? In my opinion it should be through our universities,
through research and development, in colleges. We are doing
reviews of all sorts of things.
The National Research Council has a budget of something in
the region of $450 million a year. Imagine if the National
Research Council's budget of $450 million a year were
somehow worked into universities so that instead of getting
$450 million worth of value from that investment, we could get
$1 billion worth of value from that investment and we would
also have a direct rubber meets the road responsibility. Here are
people actually doing things, innovating, transferring that
technology and applying it.
Another area in which we should be looking at strategic
investments is the electronic highway. Years ago we had a
situation in which communication in Canada was via rivers, then
it was via railroad, then by air. We strategically put airports all
over the place that we are desperately trying to get rid of now.
At the time we needed them for communication.
(1355)
Our future will be based upon our ability to innovate and use
the collective brain power of all of our citizens, those working at
home in their study, businesses and universities. There are
people hacking away at their computers right now somewhere in
Canada who could have the secret that we absolutely must have
to make something else work. Somehow we need to connect all
of this brain power. That is the kind of innovation and strategic
value of government led initiative that in my view would be
worthwhile.
[Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member talked a lot about efficiency, productivity and strategic
investments. He did not have much to say about the tremendous
amounts spent by the federal government on manpower training.
As you know, the federal government probably wastes one or
two billion dollars annually on poorly-organized manpower
training. When we realize that the provinces are responsible for
training, the federal government's involvement in this field
means that a lot of money is being wasted.
I believe that if we keep going in this direction, there is a real
danger that we will be unable to compete with the rest of the
world. I am all in favour of free trade and globalization but, to
deal with that, our people must be properly trained. He did not
have much to say about that, and I would appreciate his
comments on manpower training, federal involvement in this
field, the attendant inefficiencies and the adverse impact of
those inefficiencies on the potential of our economy.
[English]
Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon.
member for the opportunity to say a few words about manpower
training and, in a more general sense, overlap and duplication,
the favourite mantra of the Bloc Quebecois.
Irrespective of whether the Bloc is successful in its quest to
take Quebec out of Canada, and I hope sincerely that it is not
successful, we should be devolving responsibility as close as
possible to the people who are going to be the consumers of that
responsibility.
If a job can be done by the federal government but could be
done better by a municipal government, then the municipal
government should do it.
The Speaker: It being 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order
30(5), the House will now proceed to Statements by Members
pursuant to Standing Order 31.
7500
7500
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches-Woodbine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, 65 years ago Canadian women won the right to be
legally recognized as persons.
On Monday of this week, five Canadian women were
honoured with the Governor General's Award in recognition of
their outstanding contribution toward the promotion of women's
equality.
I want to congratulate and thank Shirley Carr, Dr. Rose
Charlie, Alice Girard, Morag O'Brien and Dodi Robb for their
dedication and determination.
While women in Canada have made significant advances
since 1929 they still have a long way to go. We need only look at
the representation in this Chamber to see the distance they still
have to go.
I would encourage all members of this House and all
Canadians to continue to work for the advancement of Canadian
women in every sphere of life and in pursuit of the goal of
equality.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, for more than 18 months, Ottawa has been trying to
make up its mind about replacing the old
Lucy Maud
Montgomery, the ferry link between the Magdalen Islands and
Prince Edward Island. Since the beginning of this Parliament,
the Bloc Quebecois has urged the Minister of Transport to
decide what should be done, but the minister still cannot make
up his mind and is trying to shirk his responsibilities. However,
interprovincial ferry services are a federal responsibility and the
Magdalen Islands transportation co-op cannot go ahead without
federal financing.
Not long ago, the Minister of Transport received letters from
Quebec MNAs on the subject. Mr. Farrah, MNA for the
Magdalen Islands, and Mr. Paillé, the Quebec Minister of
Industry, agreed to ask the minister to act without delay.
Now that the minister knows it is up to him to make the
decision, what is he waiting for?
[English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
while Reform with the support of grassroot Canadians is asking
for more protection from violent, ruthless offenders proven in a
court of law to be a threat to society, the Liberal government
states that any bill seeking to keep sexual predators behind bars
will not pass a constitutional challenge. The Liberal government
is saying that it does not have the will or the courage to introduce
legislation to protect our innocent children.
A learned lawyer stated that if the government contacted
constitutional lawyers instead of bureaucratic bosses, whose
only interest is keeping their departments running smoothly and
not for the best interest of Canadians, legislation could indeed
be drafted that would pass the challenge.
When is the Liberal government going to get some gumption,
some concern for protecting grassroot Canadians and stop its do
nothing, say nothing leadership? Using provincial health laws to
keep offenders in jail is even a more stupid idea.
Learn the Constitution. Write the legislation. Do something
for a change. Grassroot Canadians want what the government
seems unwilling to give them: a safe and secure Canada.
* * *
Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at this time of
year when most of us are wearing the symbol of supreme
sacrifice, the poppy, a question nevertheless is sometimes
asked: Did the young Canadians who made this sacrifice die in
vain?
Yesterday in a citizenship court in Oshawa this question was
answered eloquently by 54 people of 17 different countries.
These people had decided that the country bequeathed to us by
the total sacrifice of too many young Canadians was, to use the
words often quoted by a prominent member of the House, ``the
best country in the world''.
I say to those who may oppose this comment that the evidence
suggests they are mistaken. Being a long time gambler I will go
with the odds. Fifty-four people from seventeen cultures say
they are wrong. Come join with us and make it 18 different
cultures working to enhance that which was so dearly bought.
I would also like to point out to all hon. members wearing a
poppy that as a symbol of the supreme sacrifice it should be
worn above all other symbols and decorations including the
parliamentary pin.
* * *
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
November 3 and November 4, 12 Nobel laureates from around
the
7501
world, four of whom are Canadian, will gather at the University
of Toronto to inaugurate the John. C. Polanyi chair in chemistry.
The celebration will be accompanied by a series of free public
lectures entitled the ``Science in Society Lectures'' to be given
by the laureates at the University of Toronto.
I mention this event not only because it honours a great
Canadian, a wonderful professor at the University of Toronto
and, if I may say, a resident of my riding of Rosedale, but also
because it is a reminder of the important place which scientific
research occupies in our modern Canadian society. It is a
reminder of the role of our universities in ensuring that basic
research continues to advance the interest of science and thus of
all Canadians.
We all owe a great deal to the countless number of dedicated
researchers throughout Canada of whom John Polanyi is one
remarkable example. If Canada is to continue as one of the
world's leading technological countries, we must support these
men and women and the universities at which they work and
teach.
* * *
Mr. Tony Ianno (Trinity-Spadina, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
week graduates from Canada and around the world met at
Toronto to celebrate the 80th anniversary of the faculty of social
work at the University of Toronto.
Social workers play a pivotal role in Canadian communities
through the promotion of social justice and equity for all groups
in society irrespective of class, gender or cultural heritage, and
especially for the disadvantaged during financially tough times.
As the oldest faculty of social work in Canada and the third
oldest of its kind in North America, the faculty has left a proud
legacy of achievements. Research advances in child welfare,
family care giving for Alzheimers disease victims and family
mediation are only some of the areas in which the faculty has
contributed to the betterment of Canadian society.
I would therefore like to take this opportunity to recognize the
great work done by social workers and to congratulate the
faculty of social work of the University of Toronto as it
celebrates its 80th anniversary.
* * *
(1405)
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
adding insult to injury, yesterday the Minister of Canadian
Heritage indicated that he was prepared to consider letting
Quebec play a role with respect to the electronic highway, a role
as important, said the minister, as that of cable companies or
municipalities.
In so doing, the minister showed how indifferent he is to
Quebec's cultural identity. It should be obvious that the
electronic highway would have a decisive impact on Quebec
society. It should be obvious that its cultural and educational
content is the exclusive jurisdiction of the government of
Quebec.
And incidentally, how does the minister account for the lack
of representatives from Quebec's cultural community on the
advisory council on the electronic highway?
The minister's incompetence and his lack of sensitivity to
these issues are another good reason to demand his resignation.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in addition to questions about the integrity of this
government regarding the Minister of Canadian Heritage, I must
raise the issue of integrity within the defence department.
It has now become clear that defence, along with Industry and
Science Canada, is actively attempting to undermine and close
down the operation of a small military magazine, Esprit de
corps, which had the audacity to criticize defence department
procedures and officials.
By threatening to refuse contracts to companies like
Mercedes Benz and General Motors that advertise in the
publication, the government is attempting to remove the base
upon which the magazine operates. These are the tactics of a
police state, not a developed democracy. In Canada, citizens
have a right to criticize the government if they disagree with its
policies or practices.
I do not agree with everything Esprit de corps says or how it is
said, but I passionately defend its right to say it and I am
appalled that senior government officials think otherwise.
The minister of defence has been repeatedly advised but
refuses to act on problems within his department. He has no
excuse for inaction here.
* * *
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the plan released today by the Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration is the result of a comprehensive consultative
process and is the first government consultation to come to
fruition.
After talking to a cross-section of Canadians over an
eight-month period, the minister has tabled a strategy which
reflects the needs and desires of our countrymen. The changes
introduced will ensure an increased emphasis on immigrants
7502
with skills and investment potential while continuing to make
family reunification a priority.
This plan generated by the people of Canada reflects
compassion, humanitarianism and tolerance, time honoured
values of the Liberal Party.
I tip my hat to the minister and to the people of Canada for a
well balanced and comprehensive citizenship and immigration
program that shall meet the needs of Canadians for years to
come.
* * *
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our
eastern Ontario caucus was informed that the only increase in
tourism in our region during the recent recession was the result
of overflow tourists from Quebec. These were visitors brought
to Canada by Quebec government advertising.
I believe the federal government through the new tourism
commission should work with the private sector to promote
Canada by promoting Canadian heritage. In eastern Ontario, for
example, the Trent, Severn and Rideau waterways are part of our
national heritage. They are a great attraction to tourists from
other provinces and countries.
Promotion of major features of Canadian heritage will attract
tourists to Canada from around the world and will encourage
Canadians to travel in Canada. At the same time promotion of
Canadian heritage will strengthen our sense of national identity.
Let us encourage interest in our heritage in Canada and around
the world.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to inform the House that the leader of the Bloc
Qebecois has just sided with the Prime Minister, whom he now
supports. Indeed the leader of the Bloc Quebecois said yesterday
that he now wants a referendum ``as soon as possible''.
This new position of his is in contrast with what he was saying
on September 20, when he pleaded for a referendum at a time
where it would be likely to be won. Now that the official
opposition and the government agree on holding a referendum
as soon as possible, we hope that the leader, the self- described
partner of Jacques Parizeau in the referendum saga, will be able
to convince his associate to proceed forthwith. Then, as the
Prime Minister was saying, we can put to rest the uncertainty
that now prevails.
(1410)
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in its
dissenting report tabled yesterday, the Bloc Quebecois demands
that the Minister of National Defence proceed with a complete
review of military spending, in particular the purchase of
submarines, taking into account the new missions the armed
forces will have to undertake in the years to come.
The measures proposed in the majority report of the special
joint committee do not go far enough. The Minister of National
Defence must come up with a realistic budget, in keeping with
the catastrophic situation we are in because of the deficit. The
minister must try harder to streamline operations to cut some
$1.6 billion.
The government must show more courage and tackle a deficit
which is eroding the future of our children.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, for the third time in less than a month the excuse of
extreme drunkenness has been used as a defence in a criminal
court.
The Supreme Court recently made a ruling in the Daviault
case and what has ensued has been devastating for all victims.
On Friday in Alberta a man was acquitted of assaulting his wife
following a 24-hour drinking binge in 1993. The judge ruled
that the man could not be held responsible for his actions
because he was so drunk he was insane.
Reform MPs have twice asked the Minister of Justice to enact
legislation to plug this loophole but we still have seen nothing.
This is not the Land of Oz and the minister I hope is not
Dorothy. Supposedly the justice minister is troubled by these
cases, but we all know that his clicking of the heels three times
will not make the issue disappear. Amending legislation must be
brought in immediately if victims in the country have any
chance at all for justice.
* * *
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the minister of agriculture has stated that the
debate surrounding the future of the Canadian Wheat Board is an
important one. In response he has announced a process which
will include asking farmers what they think.
Consultation is important. Indeed just two years ago farmers
were consulted in what was then known as transportation talks
wherein a vast majority of farmers and rural residents spoke in
favour of maintaining the crow benefit and strengthening the
Canadian Wheat Board. Then more than 13,000 rural Saskatch-
7503
ewan residents attended a rally in Saskatoon, the vast majority
again sending the message to Ottawa that a strengthened wheat
board was necessary to protect the positive future of agriculture
in Canada.
The minister of agriculture and his party have in the past
expressed strong support for the Canadian Wheat Board. In light
of consultations that have already occurred, I urge the minister
to stand firmly behind the board and its long term commitment
to farmers.
* * *
Mrs. Bonnie Hickey (St. John's East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to honour the 69 men who perished in the fall of 1942
near Bell Island, Newfoundland. I would also like to pay tribute
to those in the community of Bell Island who have kept the
memory of these men alive.
Many Canadians do not know that Bell Island was the only
community in North America to come under direct enemy fire
during World War II. In the fall of 1942 four ships, three from
Britain and one from France, were sunk by U-boats in two
separate incidents. Although 69 men died the people of Bell
Island are credited with saving many lives.
Tomorrow, November 2, the Royal Canadian Legion of Bell
Island will dedicate a seamen's memorial at Lance Cove Beach,
close to the spot where the four ships were sunk. A special
plaque to honour the people of Lance Cove is also included in
the memorial.
The liberal government has introduced the Canada remembers
program, and in this spirit tomorrow the community of Bell
Island plans to commemorate an event that should never be
forgotten.
* * *
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
chairperson for the Standing Committee on Transport it is my
privilege to acknowledge the 50th anniversary of the opening of
the international conference convened in Chicago to plan the
post-war future of international civil aviation. I would like to
note that the ICAO was created to ensure the orderly
development of civil aviation.
In honour of the 50th anniversary the ICAO has convened
another worldwide transport conference that will be held in
Montreal on November 23. There are many global developments
that will influence the future evolution of commercial air
transportation in the years to come. These include changing
trade patterns, technological advances and the growing
affluence of countries that were once less developed.
It is therefore quite timely for the nations of the world to
begin reviewing the economic rules and regulations under which
international air services are operated.
(1415 )
The ICAO is to be commended for the leadership it has shown
by organizing this conference. I wish all the conference
participants every success in their endeavours.
* * *
Mr. John Loney (Edmonton North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of my colleagues I rise to congratulate Juliette Kang of
Edmonton, a brilliant young violinist, who won the gold medal,
the $25,000 first prize, and first place in four individual
categories at the recent International Violin Competition of
Indianapolis. In fact she has captured more special prizes than
anyone else in competition history.
Ms. Kang is internationally recognized as having virtuosity
and great musical maturity, and the rare ability to regulate
rational and emotional balance.
This morning Ms. Kang was a featured guest on CBC's
``Morningside''. Her exceptional talent was displayed in her
performance of two pieces of music during the show. I hope the
interview is replayed on ``The Best of Morningside'' this
evening so that more listeners can hear this fabulous musician.
I would ask the House to join in recognizing and
congratulating the dedication and sacrifice of Ms. Kang. Every
Canadian should be proud to have such an accomplished
representative in the international music world.
_____________________________________________
7503
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, we are informed that the Minister of Canadian
Heritage sent at least seven other letters directly to the CRTC, in
addition to his letter supporting a licence application. The
minister's error is definitely compounded by the frequency with
which he interferes with the CRTC's decisions. In fact, the
minister sees nothing wrong with maintaining a regular
correspondence with a quasi-judicial tribunal. The minister
himself said this morning that the news about seven other letters
improved his credibility, which just shows how good his
judgment is.
7504
I want to ask the government how it can keep maintaining that
the Minister of Canadian Heritage committed an honest
mistake, knowing now it was not an isolated incident but
common practice for this minister.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the
Opposition was once a minister, and he knows that as such, one
has certain responsibilities. For instance, when people write to
complain about the content of television programs, a minister
not only has the right but also a responsibility to refer such
complaints to the CRTC, which was done in the case of the seven
letters. It is, after all, the minister's responsibility to make
appropriate references to the CRTC.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I may recall that five ministers were caught
sending letters of support and, in four cases, letters very
specifically advising the CRTC of that support, which means
they were directly and unduly interfering with the CRTC's
decision-making process.
I want to ask the government how many more letters from the
minister it will take to convince the government of the
minister's lack of judgment. Does the Deputy Prime Minister
share the position taken yesterday by the Minister of
Immigration that a minister should not communicate directly
with an agency for which he is responsible, thus directly
condemning the behaviour of his colleague for Canadian
Heritage vis-à-vis the CRTC?
Are we to understand that in the mind of the government, in
the mind of the Deputy Prime Minister, there are two codes of
ethics, one for the Minister of Immigration and one for the
Minister of Canadian Heritage?
[English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the
Opposition was a minister.
In his capacity as a minister he was required from time to time
to write to bodies that were under his authority. Not only did he
have the right to contact those bodies he had the responsibility.
It seems to me that when the minister responsible for
communications receives complaints from the public about the
cost, for example, of cable increases he not only has the right to
refer those letters to the CRTC he has the responsibility.
The Leader of the Opposition would be the first person to
complain if the minister responsible for communications
refused to communicate with the body that develops those kinds
of regulations. That is his responsibility. He is doing his job and
he will continue to do his job under the guidelines that the Prime
Minister has now established.
(1420)
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, when we hear the Prime Minister promise a stricter
code of ethics for the future, what the Deputy Prime Minister
just said is not reassuring. She promises that things will go on as
before since there are no objections. I may remind the
government that under Prime Ministers Joe Clark and Pierre
Elliott Trudeau, there were specific rules prohibiting ministers
from communicating directly with tribunals like the CRTC.
To show how far removed the Minister of Canadian Heritage
is from the real world, I would ask the government to consider
the fact that one of the letters that the minister sent to the CRTC
and that were revealed this morning is dated October 13, less
than two weeks after he received absolution for his first blunder,
the letter of support dated March 15. Does the Deputy Prime
Minister not realize that the hon. member for Laval West lacks
the judgment required of a minister and that he is inept and thus
incapable of performing the duties of a minister?
[English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a copy of the
letter in question. I would like to table it, along with the other
letters that have been referred to, because I think they make the
point very clearly that the minister was only carrying out his job,
his responsibilities and his function as minister.
What he was responding to was a letter from the member of
Parliament for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt who wrote to
the minister complaining on behalf of a constituent about cable
television rates.
The minister in his capacity as minister for communications
very appropriately referred this letter from the member for
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt to the CRTC. If he had
ignored the letter or thrown it in the waste basket, which seems
to be the reference of the hon. member, he would have been in
breach of his duty.
We believe the minister should carry out his duties in the
context of the very strict guidelines that have been established
by the Prime Minister to avoid any conflict of interest.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
according to the Canadian Press, the government's ethics
counsellor, Mr. Howard Wilson, had signing authority for
federal contracts taken away from him in July 1992 as the result
of an investigation by the Auditor General himself. This action
was taken against him for having awarded contracts worth close
to a million dollars without a call for tenders.
7505
When it was decided to appoint Mr. Wilson ethics counsellor,
did the government know that he had his signing authority taken
away from him by the Deputy Minister of Industry in 1992?
[English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister
and the Government of Canada have full confidence in the
integrity and the ethics of the ethics counsellor.
If the member of the opposition has anything to prove
otherwise, let him come forward and make a charge.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
conclude from the Deputy Prime Minister's answer that the
government knew and so did the Prime Minister. In this context,
how could the Prime Minister hide this information from the
opposition? Does the Deputy Prime Minister not recognize that
when the Prime Minister consulted the opposition last June
regarding the appointment of Mr. Wilson, he himself committed
a serious breach of elementary rules of ethics by keeping this
information from the opposition?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, at noon, the
Leader of the Opposition, in response to the Prime Minister's
statement said, and I quote: ``We never doubted the Prime
Minister's integrity''. He said it himself yesterday, he was even
consulted on the appointment of the person in question.
The Prime Minister stated yesterday that he takes full and
entire responsibility for his ministers' decisions. If the member
opposite wants to attack civil servants who are not allowed to
defend themselves, let him make accusations.
(1425)
[English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister has said that ministers are handed a
set of confidential rules of conduct by the PMO when they
assume their responsibilities. This is the minimum we would
expect from a government that claims to have a serious interest
in integrity. The public and Parliament have a right to see such
guidelines so they can judge whether they are kept or broken.
In keeping with the Prime Minister's commitment to integrity
and openness in government, would the Deputy Prime Minister
agree to table these original guidelines given to the ministers in
November so we can compare them with any proposed new
guidelines and the government's position on the activities of the
Canadian heritage minister?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has
promised a full and open debate of the new guidelines. I am sure
in the context of those guidelines the commissioner for ethics is
going to want to bring all the facts forward.
I hope there will be a full public debate because I know the
guidelines will stand the test of time. However no guideline is
the measure of a person's honesty.
The Prime Minister said that he was putting his integrity on
the line because the hallmark of this government was not
determined by what was written down in guidelines, but rather
the fact that he and his ministers carried out their jobs with
honesty and integrity. Nobody is challenging the honesty or the
integrity of the Prime Minister.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, they will not submit the guidelines.
Anyone who has studied the relations of ministers to quasi
judicial tribunals knows there is only one guideline that ought to
guide their communications. They should communicate only
through statutes, orders in council and the submissions to public
inquiries.
Yet yesterday the Prime Minister said the only guideline he
gave ministers last November on such communications was that
they should only do so through the duly authorized officials.
Surely a Prime Minister who has spent 30 years in public life,
some of them as justice minister, can come up with a better
guideline than that.
Are the rest of the government's guidelines on ethics as weak
and as poorly worded as this one? If so, what specifically is the
government going to do to strengthen them?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if you follow the
rationale of the leader of the third party, basically you would tell
the member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, who wrote
to the minister on behalf of a constituent who was concerned
about the increase in the cost of cable television, that the
minister cannot pass his concerns along. The minister has a
responsibility in the discharge of his duties to make sure that the
cable television system is working properly.
The Prime Minister has set in place is a system where all
future correspondence must go through the ethics counsellor.
We think that is an interim fair measure. We are looking for a
very full and open debate in the House on guidelines that will
permit ministers to do their jobs and at the same time will make
sure that members of Parliament get the service they deserve
from ministers of the government.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, what 99 per cent of ministers in other jurisdictions do
7506
in that case is tell the constituent to communicate directly and
give the reason why. This is not exactly rocket science.
An hon. member: That is right.
Mr. Manning: Mr. Speaker, the rules of conduct for ministers
and the role of the ethics counsellor are inseparably related.
Yesterday in the House the Prime Minister refused to disclose
the content of his office's discussions with his own ethics
counsellor on the dubious activities of the Minister of Canadian
Heritage. This sort of closed room, back door, ad hoc handling
of an ethical issue runs contrary to his profession of interest in
integrity and openness.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister directly, what specifically
was the advice that the ethics counsellor gave to the
government? Did he or did he not say that the Minister of
Canadian Heritage should resign?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept the
premise of the hon. member that when Jim Hart, MP for
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt wrote to the minister-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
(1430 )
The Speaker: My colleagues, it would be better to refer to
one another by our ridings rather than mentioning our names.
Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, the letter reads: ``Dear Minister: A
constituent of mine has a concern in regards to pending fee hikes
at Regional Cable T.V. Inc. It would be very much appreciated if
you''-the minister-``would review the enclosed letters from
Mrs. Kirkland and provide explanation as to why she must pay
$3 more per month in basic rates even if she does not want the
additional channels''.
Presumably the minister in making a reference to the CRTC
was passing along the concerns rightfully expressed by a
member of Parliament on behalf of his constituents. That is part
of the job of being a member of Parliament. We would hope the
Reform Party would not want to tie the hands of members who
are trying to represent their constituents.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, when I listen to the answers of the Deputy Prime
Minister, I realize that the Minister of Canadian Heritage is not
the only one to confuse the duties of a member of Parliament
with the role of a minister.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us what credibility the
Minister of Canadian Heritage still has, considering that he is
not even able to understand the responsibilities he has regarding
the CRTC?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister
himself said in this House that mistakes were made. Is the hon.
member looking for a solution or a political issue?
Last week, the Prime Minister adopted the following solution:
he wrote to every minister that no correspondence can be sent
directly to quasi-judicial bodies. That solution was arrived at
before Mr. Wilson proposed more elaborate rules which will be
debated in this House. There was a problem and mistakes were
made. These mistakes were corrected and we should respect the
integrity of ministers when they are carrying out their duties.
The Leader of the Opposition was a minister at one time. He
knows that he had a responsibility to his constituents from
Lac-Saint-Jean and also to his position as minister. We would
not want his constituents to have their hands tied just because
their member of Parliament happened to be in the cabinet. They
want to obtain services. We want to provide good, efficient and
honest services. And that is what we are trying to do.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I am not a minister, but last Wednesday evening,
when I heard about this issue, I immediately knew that the
minister had to resign. That is the real solution.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mrs. Tremblay: And if it is not, then this will turn into a
political issue.
What kind of credibility can a minister have when he does not
understand the basic rules governing his department's
operations, and how can he deal with the important issues for
which he is responsible, including the financing of the CBC, the
future of Telefilm Canada and the National Film Board, the
electronic highway, as well as the review of the Copyright Act
which we have been waiting for so long?
[English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has
made it very clear that a mistake was made and that the
government has put in place a system to ensure it does not
happen again. The minister himself made it very clear that as
soon as he understood the CRTC was misinterpreting his
original letter, he sent a second letter to rectify the issue.
The member says she is going to turn it into a political issue.
If the member is really interested in a solution she will
recognize the fact that as of last Friday the Prime Minister
issued a directive to all members of the cabinet that any letter by
any minister to any quasi-judicial body will go through Mr.
Wilson.
7507
(1435)
In the meantime Mr. Wilson is working very hard. In fact he
had a meeting with cabinet this morning to establish hard and
fast guidelines for dealing with quasi-judicial bodies that will
respect the work of ministers and at the same time respect the
rights of constituents across this country to be rightfully
represented in Parliament. I do not want the electors of
Hamilton East to have their hands tied just because I happen to
be in the cabinet.
The Speaker: My colleagues, once again I would appeal to
you to make both the questions and the answers as brief as
possible.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
We learned that the Minister of Canadian Heritage has written
eight letters to the CRTC. Seven of these letters do recognize
that he cannot interfere, yet in the eighth letter he does not
qualify his interventions. The minister knew that he was not to
interfere in seven cases. Why did he choose to intervene in this
particular case with the quasi-judicial body for which he is
responsible?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the premise of the hon.
member's question in fact is refuted by a letter that she received
from the person to whom she referred yesterday when she said
there were allegations of undue influence.
In fact the secretary general of the CRTC has written back to
the hon. member stating: ``All communications related to a
public process are treated in the same way regardless of
originator. This includes a minister of the crown or other
members of Parliament''. The member will know that because
she received the letter from Mr. Darling which clarified very
specifically that no special treatment had been received.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
my question was directed to the Minister of Canadian Heritage. I
believe we still do have a Minister of Canadian Heritage on the
other side.
With respect to the communication between the CRTC
secretary general and my office, yes indeed I did have a
panic-stricken secretary general call me yesterday.
My question is focused on the Deputy Prime Minister in this
instance. Yesterday in an interview the minister of immigration
stated he would not send a letter to the Immigration and Refugee
Board. He said it would be wrong for him to write to a
quasi-judicial body that reports directly to him. I do not
understand this. The minister of immigration appears to
understand it, but the Minister of Canadian Heritage does not.
The Prime Minister is not applying the same ethic
requirements to all of his cabinet. I ask this question specifically
and directly for an answer. Why is he giving the Minister of
Canadian Heritage such special treatment in this instance?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister
came to this House and provided members with all the facts and
information surrounding the matter. In fact he stated quite
clearly that the minister in question made a mistake.
(1440)
The minister in question made a mistake and the guidelines as
they relate to quasi-judicial bodies were not clear. He had
moved to rectify the mistake, first of all by the member's letter
specifically to the CRTC. Second the Prime Minister moved to
clarify the guidelines by asking Mr. Wilson to reintroduce a new
package. In the meantime he has established interim guidelines
where all future communications of all ministers to
quasi-judicial bodies must go through the ethics counsellor.
I think he has done the job in four days and I feel that he has
delivered on his promise of honest government. I believe he has
reinforced the notion that ethics and integrity are the hallmark
of his administration, they are not simply a regulation.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
while the Minister of Canadian Heritage continues his soul
searching and is probably getting ready to confess all, let me
address another issue. My question is for the Deputy Prime
Minister.
CSIS is back in the hot seat. According to a book entitled
Betrayal, which will hit the stands this week, CSIS asked one of
its agents to plant a bomb aboard an Air India plane in Rome in
1986, so that Sikh terrorists would be blamed for it.
Does the government intend to check such troubling
allegations and does it acknowledge that, if they are proven true,
the strongest measures should be taken against such criminal
activities?
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this matter was reviewed by the Security Intelligence
Review Committee and was reported on in its public report in
1987-88. It is my recollection that the Security Intelligence
Review Committee in that report found that CSIS had acted
properly, contrary to the allegations.
7508
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, let
me point out to the Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons that one of his own members made this serious
allegation.
Considering the allegations that democratic organizations
were infiltrated by CSIS, that the conversations of members of
the Quebec government were monitored by the CSE and a bomb
was placed aboard an Air India plane by a CSIS agent, will the
government agree to set up a real public inquiry on the actions of
federal secret agents?
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, responses about the CSE would have to come from the
Minister of National Defence.
With regard to the matter reported in the press as being the
subject matter of a book, which I have not seen yet, I have just
read about it in the press, I understand the matter of Ryszard
Paskowski was thoroughly examined by the Security
Intelligence Review Committee. In its annual report for
1987-88 it stated: ``CSIS dealt properly with Ryszard
Paskowski''. I think that speaks for itself.
* * *
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Deputy Prime Minister and has to do with the role of the
ethics counsellor in the now infamous Minister of Canadian
Heritage affair.
We have it on good authority, namely from the counsellor
himself, that he first found out about the letter on Wednesday,
October 26 and that his source was the press and not the Prime
Minister's office. He was not asked by the Prime Minister's
office to do anything. He was not asked to prepare a report on the
letter and he has not done so.
My question is simple: Why did the Prime Minister take the
trouble to appoint an ethics counsellor and obligate the
taxpayers to pay for the cost of that position if he does not
consult with him on an issue this critical when he had over a
month to do so?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime
Minister more than adequately answered that question when the
same question was posed yesterday and last week.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): I suppose, Mr. Speaker, we
will ask the same question again until we get an answer that is
correct for the Canadian people.
(1445 )
The ethics counsellor has confirmed that it was only on Friday
last, October 28, that he was given a document which outlines
the rules for ministerial conduct and that he was asked to bring it
up to date vis-à-vis dealings with quasi-judicial bodies. The
Prime Minister stated yesterday that his recommendations were
to be discussed by cabinet.
Would it not enhance public confidence if the guidelines for
ministers would be made public, be presented, debated and
possibly amended in this House and approved by a free vote of
members of Parliament on behalf of all Canadians?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the
process that the Prime Minister promised earlier this week.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Speaking
yesterday at the convention of the
Association des
câblodistributeurs du Québec, the heritage minister stated that
only the Canadian government should control the electronic
highway, in order to be able to set national objectives and
promote the Canadian cultural identity. He categorically refused
to acknowledge the role or responsibility of the provinces in this
matter.
How can the heritage minister exclude Quebec and all the
other provinces from the electronic highway project and
consider them, along with cable operators and municipal
governments, as mere lobbies?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, had our colleague taken the time to read the
speech I made yesterday, he would know that what he has just
said is absolutely incorrect.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am just
quoting today's newspaper.
Must we infer from the scornful attitude of the minister that
not only does he deny in fact Quebec's distinct character, but
that he also rejects off-handedly all our historic claims in
matters of culture and communication?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to see how my words are
distorted. In fact, I have been very open to any contribution the
industry and any stakeholder in Quebec can make to the
development of the electronic highway.
7509
[English]
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to change the line of questioning in this House if I could. My
question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Industry.
It has been one year since we were all elected to this
prestigious House of Commons. In reviewing my files I
happened to notice that this government had made a
commitment one year ago that we wished to become a nation of
exporters.
I have a large representation in the business community in
Nepean and a large number from the high tech industry asking if
this ministry has moved ahead on making sure that we become a
nation of exporters?
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge this
very timely question from the member for Nepean.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): The Reform Party
does not seem to show a lot of interest here in the government's
commitment toward small and medium sized business. This is
National Services Month.
The service companies of this country employ close to 9
million Canadians and the Government of Canada has made a
commitment to work with the service organizations of this
country to make sure that they are properly equipped to be more
competitive as we head into a global trading experience. We are
adding all kinds of support to the FBDB and to the rest of the
Department of Industry to make sure that the service companies
of this country are looked after.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
(1450 )
The Speaker: I am sure we will all agree that all questions
should have the same weight and they should be getting an
answer that we all listen to. I would encourage you that when
questions are asked we give the responder a chance to get the
answer out.
* * *
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I too
would like to change the line of questioning. The Liberals of the
1990s are scandalously similar to the Liberals of the 1970s,
smacking of allegations and conflict of interest.
In 1971 our present Prime Minister called a Quebec judge.
Regardless of the reason he maintained he could call since he
was acting just as a member of Parliament and not as a minister.
Sound familiar? He did not say that was a mistake.
Could this be the reason 20 years later why the Prime Minister
will not ask this minister to resign because he could not hold this
minister to a higher level of responsibility than he himself had?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am surprised and
disappointed at the line of questioning of the hon. member.
The fact is there is no one in this House who has a greater
sense of integrity or honesty than the Prime Minister.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
1976 Prime Minister Trudeau brought in guidelines that stated:
``Nor may any member of cabinet communicate with members
of quasi-judicial bodies'', except of course through the proper
formal channels. Even in 1984 Mr. Mulroney put guidelines in
place.
Are these guidelines of the 1970s and the 1980s not good
enough for these Liberals of the 1990s? Will the Prime Minister
live up to that fine sense of integrity and ask this minister to
resign?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the hon.
member is somehow leaving the impression with the public that
this guideline is in someway different from the guidelines that
have been in place in the past.
The guideline the Prime Minister instituted with respect to
quasi-judicial bodies was the guideline that had been in place
for more than a decade. The guideline is obviously not clear and
that is why last Friday the Prime Minister asked the ethics
counsellor to make sure there is a full public-the previous
minister of Mulroney's government did not seem to mind when
they were his guidelines at that time in 1989.
The fact is the current guidelines are not clear and to clear up
any uncertainty the Prime Minister is asking for a full open
parliamentary public debate on new guidelines. I do not see how
much clearer the Prime Minister can get than that.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
we are now facing a very serious financial crisis, as the Minister
of Finance found out himself just recently. In that connection,
we learned that the cost of travel made last year by federal civil
7510
servants reached $617 million, which is more than $2.5 million
a working day in travel by federal civil servants.
(1455)
The minister asked members of the Bloc Quebecois for
suggestions; should he not work at reducing travel by federal
civil servants which costs, as I said, $2.5 million a working day?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, actually the amount of travel costs has been going
down.
There has also been a decline in the number of people in the
public service as has been pointed out previously. Of course this
is kept under very close scrutiny by the Treasury Board and by
the various ministries. We intend to keep doing that.
We are in a position in which we have to cut the cost of
government to get the deficit down to 3 per cent of GDP. It
requires that we keep vigilant on all of our expenditures
including travel expenditures. We intend to do that.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
while we are on the subject of costly travel, my second question
is for the defence minister. Can the Minister of National
Defence confirm that Lieutenant-General Scott Clément used a
government Airbus 310 for the sole purpose of going to the
William Tell missile firing competition in Florida, when he
could have taken a commercial flight?
[English]
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have no
knowledge of the specific question the hon. member has posed.
Quite often there are training flights using A-310s and
Challengers. I will look into the matter for him.
* * *
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Prime Minister.
With respect to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, it is
becoming increasingly obvious that the application process of
the CRTC was tainted by political interference by the minister.
The CRTC in refusing the application may itself have made a
political decision just to be on the safe side. The panic stricken
phone call from Mr. Darling to the member for Calgary
Southeast yesterday merely confirms the concern felt by many
Canadians that this quasi-judicial body is now feeling pressure
for political reasons.
How can the Prime Minister assure us that the integrity of the
CRTC and its decision making process have not been
compromised by the actions of the minister?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the letter of the
secretary general to the hon. member he states quite
categorically that all communications related to a public process
are treated in the same way. This includes a minister of the
crown or other members of Parliament.
The member pointed out quite rightly yesterday that
obviously the influence of the minister could not have been that
substantial because the application was denied.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
when a letter comes from a minister it is often as much what is
not said as what is said that influences an outfit like the CRTC.
In 1976 the Minister for Public Works at that time telephoned
a judge on behalf of the current Minister of Foreign Affairs. That
minister offered his resignation voluntarily to the Prime
Minister but the Prime Minister of the day, Mr. Trudeau, refused
to accept it.
Surely it is not Liberal tradition to interfere with judicial
bodies and get away with it. Will the Prime Minister, if it is,
break with that tradition, do the right thing and ask for the
resignation of the Minister of Canadian Heritage?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member can pose
his question to the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister is not here. It is awfully hard for us to
respond to allegations of things that were not said in letters that
were not written.
* * *
Mr. David Iftody (Provencher, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
There are growing concerns among the Canadian small
business community about the sustained growth of the economy
and third quarter results.
The small business community in particular now is
undertaking long term investment and hiring decisions on the
prospect of sustained growth. What assurances can the Minister
of Finance give this House that the recovery is secure and under
way?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the
member for asking a question on the economy which is
obviously of the greatest interest to Canadians, albeit clearly not
of interest to the opposition.
7511
(1500 )
Small and medium size businesses in the country are
obviously very encouraged by the strong growth we enjoyed in
the month of August, but it is also important to look at the details
behind that growth.
The fact is that half the increase came in manufacturing. In
fact manufacturing is up 8.7 per cent over the month of August
last year. At the same time construction is up 7.7 per cent over a
year ago. There is a clear revival as a result of the increase in the
number of jobs and consumer confidence; retail sales are up.
One thing I am delighted to be able to say-and I congratulate
the member for his question-is that we are clearly on the way to
the strongest growth in the country since 1988.
* * *
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to the
presence in the gallery of our fellow parliamentarians who are
here with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association: Mrs.
Elizabeth Hubley of Prince Edward Island; the hon. Gérald
Clavette of Newfoundland; the hon. Emery Barnes, Speaker of
British Columbia; Anthony Whitford, MLA, Northwest
Territories; Neil Reimer, Assistant Committee Clerk, B.C.; and
Peter Doucette, Government Whip, P.E.I.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
_____________________________________________
7511
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-57, an act to implement the agreement establishing the World
Trade Organization, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as a
Quebecer and as the member of the Bloc Quebecois representing
the riding of Longueuil, I am pleased to take part in this debate
on the bill to implement the World Trade Organization
Agreement. In my remarks, I will rely on my personal
experience.
I worked in the business sector for 15 years. I owned a small
business that employed about 25 people. I was also the president
of a company in the wholesale business with some 30 employees
and president of the Chamber of Commerce of the South Shore
of Montreal, the third most important chamber of commerce in
Quebec. During the same period, I sat as director on the board of
a credit union. I say all that just to show that most business
people in Quebec are deeply involved in their community, just
as I was, and can be pressed for time.
It is sometimes difficult for them to deal with international
matters. I am proud of my deep involvement in the business
sector, because it is a marvellous and exciting sector. Business
people are constantly looking for means to improve both
management and productivity. It is a world of constant change
and inventiveness.
As a businessman and a politician from Quebec, I am
delighted at the new opportunities that will flow from the new
GATT.
(1505)
Business people, through trade, will also get to know each
other better and probably become the best instrument for
achieving a more lasting peace in the world. So the Uruguay
Round and Bill C-57 are important steps, as I have just
mentioned. Today, the globalization of markets creates
important and increasing opportunities. Businesses have to be
more and more efficient.
Businesses need a flexible and efficient framework regulating
trade as well as credible dispute-settlement mechanisms.
Businesses must be able to count on the co-operation of
enlightened government partners as well as unions sensitive to
the economy. Businesses need laws and rules adapted to this new
environment.
The Uruguay Round negociations will lead to an increase in
international trade. Some statistics put the increase at $750
billion over the next 10 years. The amount of money flowing
from one country to another is potentially enormous on the
international level. So we must carefully watch this increase in
international trade. This will also bring about an increase in
total wealth of some $200 billion.
Here also, people will be richer, they will be able to spend
more and they will have a greater potential for doing so. With
Bill C-57, which implements the accord in Canada and Quebec,
what are the stakes for Quebec, what is the importance of trade
for Quebec? Quebec has a long commercial tradition. The
history of our people is marked by trade.
Fur, fish and softwood trade has been the backbone of our
economic development for the last four centuries. Today, we
still export softwood, newspaper, electricity, aluminum and
communication services. The last thirty years have allowed
Quebec to open to the world.
The increase of international trade in Quebec is important
and, of course, we have established some bases in other
countries. We have several offices in several major cities of the
world, in the United States as well as in Europe. Even in Japan,
we have trade commissioners, so that Quebec is remarkably
open to the world, and we will continue to work in that direction.
Quebec is very open to the world. Here is an example that
happened not too long ago. In 1988 the government had a free
trade project with the United States. Quebec was one of the first
to support free trade. Free trade was supported almost unani-
7512
mously, certainly by the Quebec Liberal government, the Parti
Quebecois and the vast majority of Quebecers.
Of course, at that time, federal Liberals were against free
trade. Over time, they finally understood, but I can tell you that
it was a never-ending battle, particularly during the 1988
election, which was mostly based on free trade. Unions were
also against it because they were supporting the NDP. But now,
they have changed and are starting to understand that free trade
with the United States is a good thing, that world market
liberalization is a good thing for most businesses.
Quebec also supported the latest agreement, NAFTA, between
Canada, the United States and Mexico. Once again, that
demonstrates that Quebecers are very open to world markets. I
will now talk about Quebec's openness towards the coming of
new partners in NAFTA. Quebec, a growing society, has become
a partner which is credible, efficient and well respected not only
in North America but also in Europe. More and more
businessmen and businesswomen in Quebec are active in
international trade. Quebec needs a legal framework in order to
develop its export industry. International trade is a challenge for
business people in Quebec. There are numerous and daily
challenges in the business sector but international trade is even
more demanding.
(1510)
There are some aspects to be considered. First, the financial
soundness of the company. Before considering the export
related costs, we have to assess all the costs in terms of
prospecting and distribution network. For instance, as far as
foreign accounts receivable are concerned, we have to take into
consideration customs clearance and exchange rates.
Second, the control of production costs. Can the production
be done within the timeframe without altering services provided
to local customers who bring in our daily bread and butter?
Third, staff qualifications. Is the staff fully qualified to meet
the demand? In terms of foreign languages, legal and technical
vocabulary, business networks, financial support agencies,
market, traveling, etc., can we train current staff? Should we
hire qualified staff or people abroad?
Fourth, the marketing instruments. Before investing in
marketing activities, a company should get some information on
the way of doing things in the country with which it intends to do
business.
Fifth, the expectations of customers. Check if the product or
the service you wish to export meets the expectations of our new
customers. International trade is a complex matter, hence the
importance of trade agreements and mechanisms necessary to
their implementation.
The role of governments. International governments, the 108
governments party to the agreement must first establish a
framework for international trade; negotiate trade agreements
furthering the access to new markets as well as preserving
harmony and balance; eliminate barriers to international trade.
The Uruguay Round satisfies those requirements to a great
extent.
Sixth, business support. I believe the government should keep
a close eye on the performance of businesses, their needs and the
different matters that I have already mentioned, for example a
certain guarantee concerning accounts receivable. When you
export, collecting bills can be a difficult thing. The government
should establish some sort of guarantee. That already exists for
larger companies but it becomes very difficult and costly for
small business, small and medium-sized firms. Governments
should create a fund that would guarantee accounts receivable
for small and medium-sized firms wishing to export.
There is also the issue of loans for the promotion of our
products. It is often very difficult for small firms who have
excellent products to export them if they do not have the
necessary cash flow and it is often difficult to obtain it from the
banks. Measures should be taken to ensure provision of funds
for the promotion of our products. These funds would not
constitute a gift but would rather be a loan guaranteed by the
government or by independent insurance companies or others.
Such a fund should definitely be set up to promote our products
on foreign markets.
(1515)
There are also trade bureaus abroad that are dynamic and
available, people who are very willing to help our small and
medium-sized businesses wishing to export and to develop
markets. Public servants often lack drive. There is a lot of
diplomatic talk, but when the time comes to do business, it is
considered inappropriate. But I believe that the best way to
survive is to do business, especially in these very open markets.
It will really be necessary to support our businesses, to at least
give them the information they need about the culture and the
economy of those countries, the way they do business, all kinds
of information that is available to the staff of the Department of
Foreign Affairs and that could be useful for small and
medium-sized businesses.
Because it is important I want to focus on an area over which
Quebec has been claiming exclusive control for a long time,
manpower training. We shall have to really consult each other,
to try to be as efficient as possible and to train highly advanced
people in order to be able to produce, create, be productive, to
have adequate manpower, etc.
This is a very important point. I read in L'actualité of
September 15 an article I found interesting. I knew a little bit
about it, because when I was chairman of the Committee on
Science and Technology we toured Europe. I had been struck by
the dynamism shown by the Germans in the area of training in
7513
science and technology. Scientists I met there were utterly
different from the scientists here; they acted like car salesmen.
They were extremely energetic and, what is extraordinary, they
had business acumen.
In the article I was mentioning, Sylvie Halpern writes: ``A
small town of 15,000 inhabitants can have its own technical
school, provided there is some industry and specific needs for
specialized manpower. The financing comes from the Lander,
the 16 administrative regions of Germany''.
In Germany, the regions are responsible for vocational
training. The federal government does not tell the regions what
they need in terms of training, they each look after the needs of
their area. It is said that Quebec and Ottawa quarrel about that. I
should have said at the start: ``Here is a model that works, the
German model''.
This system has been in existence in Germany for a long time.
They decentralized manpower training long ago, and they did it
in a way which is more responsive to the needs of business.
Here is another interesting excerpt: ``The strength of the
German technical colleges resides in the fact that students come
and go constantly''. I must say that in the vocational schools,
even in the schools of high technology, students share their time
between the workplace and the classroom. They put to use what
they learn and are much more capable and efficient when they
get on the work market. This way, products are better,
productivity is greater, etc.
It is also reported that: ``Technical colleges are a new type of
university focusing on practical abilities''. That is what they do.
The report says we simply must be more practical in what we
teach instead of teaching vague notions, horizontally. We must
be closer to businesses and focus more on their needs. It will be
necessary.
It goes on to say: ``About 800 industry professionals teach in
these institutions''. Their teachers are not people who know
nothing of the industrial environment but only big principles
learned in books. They are people who work in the industry and
are well-acquainted with this environment.
(1520 )
What I mean is that manpower training must be managed by
Quebec, by businesses and even by those regions with highly
specialized sectors. This is the only way we will become truly
productive and be able to meet the competition from other
countries in a global economy. I support the opening of markets,
but, at the same time, we must ensure that our labour force, be it
technicians, managers or business owners, is adequately trained
to compete on the world markets.
Germany is an excellent example of this. I even took the
trouble to send a copy of this article to Mr. Garon, the new
education minister in Quebec, for him to read.
It bears to be repeated. We will never repeat it enough because
the federal government is so stubborn. We have been talking
about it for the past 20 or 30 years, but during all that time we
have been falling behind. That is why we have to repeat it again
and again. I wonder if we will ever succeed. The federal
government is so pig-headed and, as you know, it wants to keep
its spending power all for itself so that it can tell Quebecers:
``Look, if I had not been here, this would not have been
possible''. That is the idea, you see. This is not logical, this is
not practical. This is not the right thing to do. But what the
federal government is saying is this: ``I want to impose my will.
I want to prove that I am important. If I were not here, you would
not be able to succeed''. And herein lies the misconception.
Have I run out of time, Mr. Speaker? I feel as if I have only
been speaking for ten minutes. I still had a lot of things to say.
Anyway, I am very proud to have taken part in this debate.
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I just heard the hon.
member opposite talk about the stubbornness of the government
of Canada and governmental services such as the FORD-Q, the
Federal Business Development Bank, and the services
responsible for promoting Canadian exports.
I would really like to know whether the federal government
was stubborn when it came to providing assistance to Canadair,
Bombardier, SNC Lavalin, when it came to providing assistance
to Spar Aerospace in Montreal and Quebec pharmaceutical
companies. Did they call it stubbornness on the part of the
federal government when tens of thousands of jobs were created
with the direct participation of the government of Canada?
Unfortunately, the hon. member takes a stand that completely
ignores such accomplishments as well as the unconditional
support of the Canadian government to Quebec businesses.
The member opposite talks about the qualifications of Quebec
representatives abroad, but what does he think of the
appointment of the former chairman of the Société
Saint-Jean-Baptiste of Montreal, an ideologist who knows
nothing about Quebec business, let alone about international
affairs. You would call him a worthy representative of Quebec
and Quebec business people abroad?
I know what I am talking about. I speak from experience. I
have had the privilege of working in Japan myself on a number
of occasions. To think that we, Quebecers, are represented by an
ideologist from the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste of Montreal
whose sole purpose for being there is to sell separatist
propaganda instead of working to open up new channels of trade
for Quebec businesses, I say it is time that we determine how
useful
7514
these Quebec offices abroad really are, when we are represented
by the likes of Mr. Doyon, the former chairman of the Société
Saint-Jean-Baptiste of Montreal.
With respect to education in Germany for example, one must
remember that nothing prevented Quebec from training
semi-skilled manpower because, as we know, education is a
provincial jurisdiction. Quebec has had control over education
matters for much more than 30 years; it has had it for 125 years.
So, nothing is preventing Quebec from setting up a real
vocational training program that meets the needs of the people
of Quebec and the challenges of the next century.
(1525)
I would be curious to hear what the hon. member opposite has
to say on these three subjects: first, the fact that the federal
government has always participated and that many businesses in
Quebec have benefited from its participation; second, the fact
that I challenge the qualifications of the Quebec delegate
general in Tokyo and, third, whether or not he recognizes that
Quebec was never prevented from conducting its own in-house
vocational training program.
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil): Mr. Speaker, when the hon.
member talks about the subsidies received by Quebec
businesses, I agree with him. However, he forgot to mention
something I pointed out in my speech earlier, namely that the
money received by Quebecers is the money they sent to Ottawa
previously. It is not a gift from the federal government; that is
the problem.
Federalists are always trying to make Quebecers believe that
Quebec could not survive without the federal government. In
fact, the money given to Quebec, whether it is the New Horizons
Program for seniors, the old age pension or business subsidies,
comes from Quebecers. Let us stop pretending that this money
comes from the federal government, when it comes from the
pockets of Quebec taxpayers. God knows how much we pay in
taxes! God also knows how much is wasted because, while this
money goes from Quebec to Ottawa and back to Quebec,
perhaps 25, 30 or 40 per cent is lost through waste,
inconsistency, etc. That is the first answer.
As for representatives abroad, I can say that the Government
of Quebec is doing an excellent job. Four or five representatives
in New York, Boston, Tokyo or elsewhere have already been
replaced as it is quite normal for a government to be represented
by people who share its vision and its business policy. Would the
Liberal Party of Canada not replace its representatives if they
did not share its vision? The Parti Quebecois is moving quickly
and doing a very good job, and I do not see anything wrong with
that.
As for the former President of Montreal's
Saint-Jean-Baptiste Society, I know him personally. I can tell
you that he is an exceptionally intelligent man. His vision is
much wider than that just outlined by the hon. member for
Gaspé, much wider than the hon. member thinks. If he has such a
narrow view of people, I think that he has no place in this House.
He shows flagrant disrespect for this person who devoted
himself body and soul to protecting the French language in
Quebec. He may not think French is important in Quebec but it is
very important to us; we have great respect for this language and
I think he should, too.
As far as training is concerned, there is no doubt that Quebec
is responsible for training, but the federal government
stubbornly continues to spend billions of dollars on manpower
training. There will be a $2 billion UI surplus. Of course, the
federal government will want to keep this money and then spend
it in Quebec so that it can boast that it is doing Quebecers a
favour. We know that this money is being spent in a disorderly
fashion. It is spent with an efficiency rate of about 25 per cent. I
am not saying that it is completely wasted, but spending on
manpower training is about 25 per cent effective.
Very little really adequate training is going on for the money
that is spent. The amounts are huge! Imagine if the federal
government left this $2 billion with Quebecers or gave it to the
Quebec Department of Education to create proper programs that
are more focused on businesses that need better adjusted
training. No, that is not what happens. Seventy-five per cent is
wasted.
On Monday, I was in my Longueuil riding office and three
people with manpower training problems were there to say that
they were finishing high school and their aid was being cut.
They were told that they were not entitled to assistance anymore
and it was over.
(1530)
That is crazy. I prefer not to talk about it. I am tired of it,
because every week we have problems with this system. For a
long time, Quebec has demanded control of manpower training.
It is essential and Quebecers are unanimously for it. Everyone in
Quebec-business people, labour, the Department of Education,
the former Liberal government, the Parti Quebecois, the present
government-demands it. The Bélanger-Campeau Commission
also called for it, but the federal government is stubborn and
nothing can be done about it.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Okanagan Centre
will have the floor next. I might indicate to colleagues that after
the member speaks, we will go to 10-minute speeches because
we will have debated the matter for five hours.
However the hon. member for Okanagan Centre has the full
20 minutes.
7515
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to enter the debate on Bill C-57.
This bill supports the conclusions of the latest round of GATT,
an agreement that provides a framework in which Canada and
the rest of the free trading world can share in prosperity and put
the world economy on a sound footing as it heads toward the
21st century.
For Canada, a country heavily dependent on trade, the GATT
represents the world's commitment to a strong international
trading system. GATT shows us that the world has the courage to
co-operate, not hide behind destructive, protective measures
and that it is able to find a trade dispute mechanism which can be
agreed on, not only in principle but in the real world.
The GATT has created the World Trading Organization, a
strong, effective, permanent institution which will oversee
world trade policy and settle disputes between nations on a
multilateral basis.
The GATT has strengthened trade rules on subsidies and
countervailing duties. The GATT has achieved commitment
from 120 participating countries to lower or eliminate tariffs or
other barriers to trade. The GATT is multilateral. One hundred
and forty-one partners in 21 countries came to these
agreements. It is progress. It is prosperity.
But the GATT does something else, succinctly, clearly,
loudly. It points out a glaring deficiency. It is easier for
Canadians to trade with the world than it is for Canadians to
trade with Canadians. While the world creates its own window
of opportunity, the federal government and the provinces are
still unable to make any real progress toward achieving the
same.
Emphasis is put on the fact that one in five jobs are dependent
on international trade and that 30 per cent of Canada's GDP is
reliant on international trade. But what about the four jobs that
rely on internal trade within Canada and the 70 per cent of GDP
that still relies on a sound fiscal and monetary climate right here
within our own boundaries?
It is like throwing salt in a wound to know that the textile
industry can find more support in the GATT than it can at home.
Canada's textile market is about to gain improved access to
major developed trading partners including the European union
and Japan. It is what the textile industry pushed for and it is what
they got. But not here in Canada.
The same is true for 11 other sectors from wood to steel to
agriculture. Everywhere in the world, but not here. This must
change.
More than an avenue of tacit trade globally, the GATT has
provided Canada the blueprint for success in breaking down
internal trade barriers. Like the GATT, we must acknowledge
that it takes the development of a strong, central body like the
World Trade Organization to ensure a well engineered program.
In Canada we need a strong central federal government able to
direct the provinces toward initiation of a multilateral, equally
beneficial agreement among the provinces like the GATT. It is
important to acknowledge that in large part the success of
Canada in the GATT negotiations has been inspired by an
industry driven agenda.
(1535 )
Industry knows what it needs to increase production and
provide more jobs. The federal government must listen to it, as
the world has, for industry's drive and confidence will give the
provinces the incentive to want to trade with other provinces.
Like the GATT, we must seek to find a level playing field. We
must encourage the internal trade market to expand so that the
trading system does not operate solely for the benefit of a
powerful few. We must create an environment in which all
provinces will be encouraged to become key players. Each
province must have the opportunity to access the Canadian
market without fearing counter-protective measures or costly
compromise.
The Minister of Industry has said again and again that we
must ensure Canada's prosperity, that trade barriers are a
question of economics, that we must liberalize trade in Canada.
The minister says we are making progress in this direction, but I
cannot agree. The urgency of this matter seems apparent to only
a few. Otherwise the government and the provinces would be
trying harder to come to an agreement.
The GATT agreement should give Canadians the confidence
to reach an interim trade agreement and prove that the advantage
lies in being less protective of our home markets, not more.
Industry knows it, but government is slow to respond. Industry
is anxious to develop a strong market inside the country, but it is
being forced to rely more and more on what is outside. Why?
Because the provinces have become so adept at their political
agendas they have forgotten the initial agenda.
We do not act like a country. We act like jealous neighbours
whose sole interest is to protect ourselves. By doing so we fail to
see that we are divesting, not investing, in ourselves and
creating limits to the markets we could access. Internal trade is
about economic unity. Without it we do not progress, but are
mired down on issues like sovereignty which only serve to
divert our focus.
While we struggle with these secondary battles the rest of the
world moves on and takes advantage of the global marketplace.
While we bicker about organization and administration, we fail
to consider strategy. We do not present ourselves to the world as
Team Canada, but 12 small and separate countries.
7516
The irony is that while we work so hard at being separate, we
all bear the cost of those Canadians who are not given the
opportunity to succeed. It is a sad commentary that we define
ourselves as Canadians through our failures more than our
successes.
We have failed at internal trade. Canadians are not good at it
and it is an attitude that reflects much too often on the way we
trade internationally. For all that Canada's international trade
represents 30 per cent of our GDP, only 100 companies or so
really represent that volume of trade. Perhaps industry would
trade better and would take advantage of international
opportunities if the governments of the country provided them
with a safe environment in which to practice their trading
abilities.
We must ask ourselves whether Canada can take advantage of
the opportunity provided by this round of GATT. Can we provide
a world market? Can we survive a world market and fully
participate in it if we do not bind together and pull together as a
whole? Can we find a way to work together so that issues of
sovereignty do not jeopardize us in the eyes of the world
monetary culture? Will we have the luxury of fighting our
cultural battles if we do not establish a strong economic
foundation first? Can we take full advantage of trade
opportunities if we insist on being the sum of our parts and not
the whole?
Some have suggested that the new era of global trade is
making the necessity for internal trade barriers obsolete. Soon
industry, they say, will lobby Geneva not Ottawa. Soon, they say
also, nation states will gradually delegate their sovereignty to
world trade organizations; but 70 per cent of our GDP says
otherwise. Four out of five jobs say otherwise. It may be the
future but we will not survive there in the future if we do not
survive and master the present.
We require the federal government to pursue the breakdown
of internal barriers with the same commitment it did in the
GATT negotiations. It must do more to ensure Canadians work
better together and enhance the opportunities of our internal
trade market. If it does not, the government will be guilty of
negligence both to the people and to the unity of this country. It
is true that the divided are more vulnerable to failure but we
have all the makings of a true economic union. It is time we saw
the necessity to achieve it. We cannot drift on the premise that
failure is far round the corner. It is not.
(1540)
We need freer trade within the country. We need an agreement
that will reflect all the valuable lessons that have been achieved
in the GATT. We need to emphasize co-operation to create jobs
and balance the budget. We need to bypass the political agendas
for an industry driven agenda that will give all parts of the
country equal access to opportunity. We need to respect that
trade barriers are a question of economics and not issues of
cultural protectionism. We need to lay more than a foundation,
we have to break through the barriers and take advantage of a
potentially profitable internal trade market. We need Canada to
succeed at home as well as abroad.
One hundred and forty-one partners in 21 countries found a
way. Surely 13 partners in one country can do the same.
[Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise on
behalf of the Bloc Quebecois to discuss Bill C-57. This
government bill, tabled by the Minister for International Trade,
concerns the implementation of the agreement establishing the
World Trade Organization.
Consequently, this legislation primarily aims to bring
Canadian laws into conformity with the agreement signed by
117 GATT member countries, in Marrakesh, on April 15. The
agreement marks the end of the Uruguay Round of negotiations,
which started more than seven years ago. Bill C-57 confirms
Canada's full participation in the World Trade Organization,
which will replace GATT, as of next January.
It comes as no surprise that the Bloc Quebecois supports the
signing of this agreement, as well as the bill tabled by the
government. As you all know, Quebec has always been very
open to the world. For many years now, Quebec governments
have maintained economic, scientific and cultural links with
several countries. Quebec has been aware of the global village
reality for a long time already. Therefore, it is normal that the
Bloc Quebecois be in favour of free trade.
In fact, you all remember that, during the 1988 federal
election campaign, Quebecers were the strongest supporters of
the Free Trade Agreement. More recently, we all remember as
well that Quebecers greeted the coming into force of the North
American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, with maturity and
confidence and, of all Canadians, Quebecers are still the
strongest supporters of free trade.
On the other hand, just a few years ago, our Liberal
colleagues, when they were in opposition, fought the fight of
their lives against the free trade agreement. More recently, in the
latest federal election, the red book said that the two free trade
agreements were seriously flawed, referring to the Canada-U.S.
Free Trade Agreement and NAFTA. It said that a Liberal
government would renegotiate them. The Liberal program went
so far as to mention cancelling the trade agreements if the
proposed changes were not made.
We are pleased to note that our colleagues have caught up with
economic reality today and become fervent advocates of freer
trade. But as they abandon their election promises, we warn the
Liberal government that we in the Bloc Quebecois will insist
that it keep its commitment to help businesses and workers
affected by the trade treaties.
7517
(1545)
The red book is clear on this subject. I quote: ``Governments
must assist individuals and firms to deal with the restructuring
that is occurring as a result of trade liberalization. Such
assistance is critical to building acceptance of structural
reforms in the Canadian economy''.
The federal government must urgently meet its responsibility
for the integration or reintegration of workers and companies
affected by the adjustments necessary for the transformation of
our economy. International competition will affect some
industrial sectors more than others. The federal government
must fulfil its commitments so that Quebec and Canada can
move toward innovation and excellence.
We know that, on the whole, freer trade promotes economic
growth and, in that sense, the agreement stands to make more
winners than losers. It is estimated that increased exports and
imports could translate, says the OECD, into potential gains of
$270 billion US, with six or seven billion dollars going to
Canada. Even then, the people of Quebec and Canada have to
feel that the government is behind them, that it is implementing
industrial reconversion measures to enable businesses to adjust
to new realities and meet the challenges of the 21st century.
And we will not be the only ones to benefit from this more
buoyant economy. The poorest countries of the planet as well as
developing countries could also take advantage of this. Too
many trade barriers have proven to be discriminatory in the past
with respect to products that these countries are in the best
position to produce and to export.
The North-South Institute recently pointed to a glaring
contradiction between our foreign aid policies and trade
barriers. For example, under the Multifibre Arrangement,
Canada applies restrictions on textiles from Bangladesh. If
Canada lifted these restrictions, the net gain to Bangladesh
would amount to $370 million, or three times our
government-to-government assistance.
I could quote many more examples of protectionism targeting
disproportionately products from the Third World. We have only
to think about anti-dumping measures, export subsidies and
customs tariff increases. Under the new agreement,
governments may no longer resort to these measures, which had
a major negative impact on poor countries.
The measures adopted as part of the Uruguay Round should
raise the net revenue of developing countries by about US$70
billion a year, which is equivalent to a 3 per cent increase in their
export earnings. This exceeds the aid they now receive from
other countries. However, as the OECD and the World Bank
recently reminded us, the poorest region of the planet,
sub-Saharan Africa, may well lose out after these agreements
are signed. Canada and the other signatory countries will have to
redouble their efforts to ensure that this region of the globe can
also benefit from a richer world.
It will also be necessary in the next few years to check on the
distribution of the wealth created in developing countries.
Except for our humanitarian efforts, Canadian aid too often
ended up helping our local businesses, propping up dictatorial
regimes, making the wealthiest people in those countries even
richer, or financing the purchase of military or paramilitary
weapons.
The internationalization of trade, however irreversible it may
seem, must not be restricted to northern countries. Trade
practices towards developing countries must be redefined.
(1550)
The new World Trade Organization will, we hope, deal with
issues affecting not only the restructuring of rich economies but
also the distribution of wealth as well as improved social and
economic justice.
[English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, as a western farmer it is a special privilege to have the
opportunity to speak today to Bill C-57. This bill as has already
been noted provides the legislation to follow through on
Canada's commitment to participate in establishing the World
Trade Organization. I am pleased to support this legislation.
For farmers who have struggled through many years of
depressed grain prices caused by the grain subsidy war between
the European Economic Community and the United States, the
completion of the Uruguay round of the GATT negotiations last
spring after more than seven years of seemingly endless
negotiations was as welcome as the first spring rain.
While all of us recognize that this agreement is just another
step toward the ongoing liberalization of international trade
regulations and not the end of the process, we must not forget it
is a very important step for Canada and the other signatory
countries. As I have said Canadian grain producers in particular
applaud this step because it at least brings the world a little
closer to restoring some sanity to the international grain trade.
The establishment of the World Trade Organization as the
successor to GATT is especially encouraging. For the first time
against the powerful lobbying efforts of the European farmers
the GATT negotiations included agriculture. The dispute
settling mechanism and appeals process is a long awaited ray of
hope for Canadian farmers. So much for the good news. Does
this bill go far enough to eliminate the trade distorting
inefficiencies in our agricultural sector?
7518
My oldest daughter turned 16 today. I wonder what the future
holds for her and other potential farmers. If she chooses to stay
in agriculture, without restructuring our programs will she and
other Canadian farmers be able to survive in the next century?
Although it is a good first step the Uruguay round just touches
a fraction of the unfair subsidies our farmers face in the
international marketplace. Bill C-57 amends 31 statutes toward
the implementation of GATT. However it fails to achieve the
spirit and the intent of GATT which is the elimination of trade
distorting policies built over decades of government
interference in the market.
What has this government done with the bill? Instead of a
complete overhaul of the agriculture programs to create a truly
internationally competitive industry, this government is doing
the absolute minimum to be in compliance with GATT. It looks
at GATT green programs but does not touch them even if they
create a further distortion in our domestic market. It looks at the
Western Grain Transportation Act for example which is not
GATT green and searches for an easy out to redesign WGTA just
enough to make it less objectionable to the international
marketplace.
Canada has been blessed with some of the finest agricultural
land in the world. Due to a combination of factors such as the
short growing season and the long distance to potential markets
our prairie grain farmers face unique conditions that influence
their decisions on what to grow, how much to grow and where to
send it.
The Canadian Wheat Board was established in 1935 to
provide some stability as well as equity of prices and export
market shares to the grain producers spread across the prairies.
Because of the size of its purchases this virtual monopoly has
led to a system of dependency and distortion.
Lately the Canadian Wheat Board appears to be moving far
beyond its traditional mandate as a central marketing agency for
Canadian farmers. Just as Canada Post competes with private
courier services, we now find the Canadian Wheat Board
operating in direct competition with grain trading companies.
While the establishment of the CWB may have been
necessary to ensure the survival of Canadian grain farmers when
it was first set up, we live in a different world today. As GATT
reduces agricultural subsidies in other countries we cannot
afford inefficiencies in our marketing and transportation system
if we want to be successful internationally.
(1555 )
We have all read the news. Entrepreneurial farmers in border
zones are prevented from trucking their grain a short distance
south across the border. Instead they must sell their export
grains to the CWB which will probably load it on a freight train
and ship it thousands of miles to a Canadian port.
About 90 per cent of the grain produced by Canadian farmers
is exported. We must remain internationally competitive if we
are to keep our market share. However, we are not playing on a
level field. Domestically, grain transport subsidies have
distorted the costs of production and delivery to our markets and
internationally, producer subsidies abound.
Over the last few years Canadian grain producers were caught
in the middle of the subsidy war between the U.S. and the
European Community. They have poured billions of dollars into
their war in an effort to steal each other's market shares but they
only succeeded in driving international grain prices down to
levels not seen since the depression.
Despite Canada pouring billions of dollars into aid for grain
and oilseed producers, thousands of grain farmers still went
bankrupt. In addition to the billions spent directly on
stabilization and insurance programs for farmers, the
government also spends over $700 million a year in grain freight
subsidies to the railway companies through the Western Grain
Transportation Act.
Under the WGTA the federal government pays the railways an
annual subsidy on a dollars per tonne basis to cover the
transportation of eligible grain from prairie shipping points to
Thunder Bay, Churchill, Vancouver and Prince Rupert. As a
result of GATT's analysis of our transport subsidies, Thunder
Bay is not subject to the GATT sanctions but the western ports
and Churchill are.
Already, valuable rail cars are tied up backhauling grain from
Thunder Bay merely so the grain qualifies for the subsidy. Does
this make sense? Yet this government's minister of agriculture
has indicated it may take him until next summer to halt this
ridiculous practice.
Because only the WGTA payments for grain transport to the
west coast and Churchill have been deemed export subsidies by
the GATT community, this means we will have to substantially
reduce export shipments of grains and oilseeds through these
ports within the next few years. In addition to a volume
reduction, a portion of the total tonnage would also be assessed
at the full freight rate.
This creates yet another distortion in our agriculture transport
sector. There will be a major incentive for detouring grain
shipments through Thunder Bay. This is despite the fact that
grain markets have changed and the Pacific rim countries
constitute a growing share of our grain market and it is the
western ports that will be subject to the volume caps. Even
though some of the grain going to Thunder Bay is also destined
for export, the GATT has deemed those WGTA payments part of
the domestic support program and not subject to GATT
sanctions and countervailing measures by other countries.
Considering two of the targeted ports are in British Columbia,
I question the fairness of this section of the agreement. British
Columbians overwhelmingly rejected the Charlottetown accord
because of the special status awarded to some citizens and
7519
provinces. This is merely another example of special status
being granted to central Canada.
Signatories to the GATT have agreed that by the year 2000-01
they will reduce their export subsidy levels by at least 36 per
cent in dollar terms and by 21 per cent in volume terms below
the 1986 to 1990 average levels.
The 36 per cent target does not eliminate major subsidies to
our competitors. Instead the export subsidy reductions are tied
directly to average support levels during the height of the grain
subsidy war between the U.S. and the EEC. At that time
subsidies for some European grain exports reached levels at
least twice the price of the product. Reducing these subsidies by
36 per cent would still leave a subsidy in place worth more than
the cost of the grain, hardly what I would call a level playing
field for Canadian farmers.
We cannot afford to tinker with our subsidy programs in the
hopes that they might comply with future GATT agreements. We
must act now to eliminate disincentives inherent in our system
which prevent more efficient handling and transport of grains.
We must act now to give farmers the information and tools
necessary to make sound management decisions based on real
market prices and transportation costs.
Given a fair chance I believe Canadian farmers can compete
successfully on the world market. However we must go much
further than this bill does when it merely modifies our programs
to meet with current international approval. As subsidies are
brought down over time we must restructure all of our programs
to prevent more internal distortions from creeping into the
domestic decision making process.
(1600)
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today we all
have to take a look at what is going on around us and realize the
globalization that is occurring leads us to where we are in terms
of the agreements we are talking about.
I have heard today that farmers are asking for a level playing
field. I have heard that there is new hope for the industry and for
Canadians. I have heard that supply management is on its way
out but we do have time for adjustment so that people can get
used to it.
I heard from one Bloc members that there is a great fear and a
hatred for the U.S., that it is trying to destroy our culture, and
that it is going to gobble us up. Separation, it seems to me, is a
good way to get gobbled up, certainly with regard to whom they
are going to be trading with. When they start having to trade
with the Americans they had better believe it will be in English.
The young people of Quebec will certainly be speaking English
rather than French.
It is incredibly ironic we are making good progress on
eliminating trade barriers internationally but have an awful long
way to go at home. Under the current system Canada's domestic
market is seriously fragmented by provincial trade barriers.
This not only affects our competitiveness internationally but
reduces our collective prosperity at home. Provincial
impediments to free trade in Canada add around $6.5 billion
annually to the cost of doing business in the country. It is around
$1,000 per family and is absolutely unacceptable.
While the government is pressing hard for freer trade
worldwide and is presenting the WTO enabling legislation in the
House, it must also spearhead a movement to get rid of
provincial trade barriers once and for all. If we could eliminate
barriers to trade at home, the efficiency of Canadian businesses
would be increased and their ability to trade internationally
would be expanded. What better way is there to improve our
position in the international marketplace? This is especially true
for small and medium sized businesses which are suffering
under the current system.
Today we are globalizing. We have talked a lot about that. We
are finding that the world is probably breaking up into three
major units. We have Europe including the eastern part of
Europe. We have the Americas both north and south, and we
have the Asia-Pacific. We must get onside. We must realize that
the world is much smaller and not stick our head in the sand and
hope that it will not catch up to us.
I was fortunate to travel across the country to listen to briefs
presented by Canadians. Everywhere we go, including many
international areas, we are told that we are not competitive
because we are not aggressive enough, because we do not get out
there and sell the country and the products we have.
We have trade departments that are doing a good job. They are
attempting to market Canada and our products throughout the
world. Something like the WTO is a great boon to them because
it gives them a common level playing field on which to market
the country and its products.
In my role in the foreign affairs area I have heard time and
again about the importance of such rules based multilateral
systems. While the WTO does not solve all the problems that
exist over international trade, it does take a giant step in the
right direction. Such a rules based multilateral trading system
will protect countries like Canada from the unilateralist
tendencies of the largest trading companies and increase our
position in bargaining and negotiating with the United States.
Hopefully in the years to come Canada will play a leadership
role in the strengthening of the rules based multilateral system
by promoting the WTO to effectively deal with the questions of
trade remedies and anti-dumping actions.
7520
Over one in five Canadians depend on exports for their jobs.
That is over two million jobs. In addition over 30 per cent of
Canada's gross domestic product comes from exports.
Therefore it is vital that Canada aggressively promotes itself
throughout the world. If we become naval gazing isolationists
and protectionists all Canadians will lose. It is also vital that the
House support Bill C-57.
(1605)
The WTO offers Canadian farmers and businessmen a great
opportunity to continue building our sales abroad. While we
also have to open our markets to others, I do not see it as a threat.
Canadian businesses can compete with anyone in the world. All
we want is a fair and open international system with a level
playing field. The WTO goes a long way toward accomplishing
this.
When this agreement comes into effect next year it will
commit some 120 countries to gradually reducing trade barriers.
This will have the long term effect of increasing world trade
dramatically. As we know, any increase in world trade means
more exports for Canadian businesses and more jobs for
Canadian workers: over 11,000 for every $1 billion in new
exports. This means greater prosperity for Canadian families
and this is what government should be all about.
We could talk about things like culture. When the Montreal
Symphony and the Winnipeg Ballet go somewhere they are
promoting the country. That is good for Canada and good for
trade. We have to stop having an inferiority complex about
ourselves. We are as good or better. We can compete and the
WTO will help us do that.
Tourism, about which I know a fair amount, is a major
industry of the world. Canada can do so much. We can be a
leader. Everyone agrees that we have the most beautiful country
in the world. Yet we have only barely touched the surface
possibilities. As we deal with the world and as we communicate
with the world we are going to do much more in the area of
promoting ourselves.
The threat to Canada does not exist in the world. We must
open our eyes and get out there and trade. The new forum does
that for us. That is why I strongly support it. We must go further,
however. We must liberalize our financial service institutions
and our telecommunications; harmonize our professional,
technical and licensing standards; and the list goes on. We must
co-operate on environment because, as I said in the House
yesterday, the environment is a world issue. It is not isolated to
one country.
To conclude, Canada must aggressively promote free trade
throughout the world. This means eliminating provincial trade
barriers at home and becoming a leader in the WTO. I express
my support for Bill C-57 which will go a long way toward
creating prosperity for our generation and that of our children.
Therefore I ask all members of the House to join me in
supporting the bill.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to
committee.)
* * *
[
English]
The House resumed from October 21 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-55, an act to establish a board having
jurisdiction concerning disputes respecting surface rights in
respect of land in the Yukon territory and to amend other acts in
relation thereto, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House on
Bill C-55, the Yukon Surface Rights Board Act. I join with the
government speakers who have spoken before me today,
including the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, in urging support for the bill. It is time to
conclude the debate by giving our unanimous support for Bill
C-55.
(1610)
As hon. members have noted, it is a complex and technical bill
and there is a good reason for it. The objective of Bill C-55 is to
put in place a comprehensive surface rights regime that will
apply throughout Yukon. This is not something that can be
achieved without a detailed setting out of rights, obligations and
responsibilities. However the impact of Bill C-55 will be far
more significant than the creation of a new institution of public
government, as important as it is.
Essentially the bill is saying that economic growth and job
creation in Yukon will now become real priorities. Often when
we come from urban ridings we tend to forget about Yukon and
the Northwest Territories; we tend to be so focused on our own
activities.
During my experience as an opposition member it seemed as
though I had a little more time to see parts of the country. I had
the privilege in my first term as a member of Parliament of
visiting parts of our north. As many members would know, it is
an area of the country that most Canadians know very little
about other than looking on a map. That is about the only time
we focus on the north. During my first term in office our leader
organized a caucus in Iqaluit in the eastern Arctic. Our colleague
from western Arctic took some of us to James Bay. Later in our
7521
term in opposition we went to the western Arctic where we
visited the various local communities.
Until one goes there one cannot imagine what is going on.
Because they are out of sight they are out of mind in our agenda
in the House. The issues and concerns are as important to them
as our concerns in our communities, in our big cities or in our
rural areas.
The bill is about giving Yukon the ability or the instrument to
start generating some of its own economic activity. Members
know that everyone in the north supports the bill. It is not as if
the bill will put in the hands of people in the north, whether they
be governments or businesses, the ability to do whatever they
want. As I read the bill there are a couple of very specific points
I want to mention. They have to do with the environment and are
found in clause 47 which talks about terms and conditions. I
would like to read it into the record:
On application made by a Yukon First Nation that does not reach an agreement
with the minister in respect of terms and conditions for the exercise by any
person, on the settlement land of the Yukon First Nation, of a right of access
described in section 2 of schedule II that are additional to any application, terms
and conditions-
There are conditions. Clause 48 reads:
Unless the Yukon First Nation and the minister agree otherwise, terms and
conditions may not be established pursuant to an order made under section 47
for a purpose other than
(a) protecting the environment;
(b) protecting fish or wildlife or their habitat;
(c) reducing conflicts between the exercise of that right and the traditional or
cultural uses of settlement land by the Yukon First Nation or a Yukon Indian
person; or,
(d) protecting the use and peaceful enjoyment of land used for communities or
residences.
(1615 )
This bill has very specific reference to ensuring that the
environmental concerns in the north which we all care about are
addressed. Any transactions taking place there have to fall
within the concerns specified in the act.
I hope all members will support this bill. As we focus on our
own economic activity and our own cities, let us not forget there
are many Canadians in the north who are hoping that with this
bill we can give them the instrument to develop their own
economic activity in a whole range of sectors, from mining to
tourism. With this bill we will give them the stability to make
those decisions.
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the member for Broadview-Greenwood talked about
many different issues.
With regard to the surface rights board although it is designed
to operate solely within the Yukon with two sets of
representatives designated by the Yukon Indians as well as by
the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the
whole concept of the board is that it will be paid for from federal
funds. This is a particularly obnoxious part of the bill.
If we want to give this board long term stability and
something that is locally responsive, then I firmly believe we
need to ensure those groups that are benefiting from the
existence of the board are the ones who are paying for it. I would
not mind having a response to that comment.
Additionally, when we talk about northern communities, it is
very important to recognize that Whitehorse is a very modern
community. It contains 90 per cent of the population of the
Yukon. There are 25,000 people, a modern airport, modern
highways, modern housing. It has many more facilities than
equivalent or smaller sized communities in my province of
British Columbia. When I was in Whitehorse this summer I had
a tremendous golf game. We cannot treat these communities and
these areas as somehow being subject to a whole different set of
rules than communities south of 60, certainly not in the case of
the Yukon. That is my belief.
There was also a statement that everybody in the Yukon
supports this bill. As we know, this bill flows from Bill C-33
and Bill C-34 that went through the House earlier this year. The
member for Broadview-Greenwood knows very well how the
Reform caucus felt about those bills. Bill C-55 is required as
companion legislation in order to implement Bills C-33 and 34,
even though they have already received royal assent.
At the time of considering Bills C-33 and C-34 we were given
that very same statement that everybody in the Yukon supported
those two bills. As a matter of fact everybody in the Yukon did
not support those bills but certainly the filtered message we
received in Ottawa was that everybody in the Yukon supported
those two bills.
(1620)
Given that Bills C-33 and C-34 have already received royal
assent and we are currently looking only at Bill C-55, the degree
of support in the Yukon is to just get on with business. It is a
much higher degree of support. I am the first one to admit that is
the case, but I did not want to holus-bolus let that remark slip by
without making a comment on it.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Mr. Speaker, I will
begin by addressing the remarks about the support for the bill. I
did not mean to suggest that every single person was behind the
bill holus-bolus but generally speaking I think people are in
favour of it. That is what I was trying to communicate.
7522
As far as the board being funded by the federal government,
the member mentioned he had some problems with that. I do not
have any problem with that. I happen to be a member of
Parliament who believes passionately in making sure that the
Government of Canada presence is alive and well in every
region of this country. In fact there are times when I think we
devolve things too quickly around here. The fact that we are
paying for this board would certainly give us some relationship
with it which in the long run could be very important for all
members of this House.
What is more important are the fiscal concerns that all
members of this House have. Quite frankly the Reform Party has
done a very good job in focusing our attention on grinding every
ounce of fat out of the system. What we have to look at in this
bill is the fact that we are going to set up a framework for
generating real economic activity. It will turn this community
into a more vibrant economic unit with more jobs, more
taxpayers and less cost on the social security system.
We have to look at the total economic equation. The fact that
we have to fund some administrative costs and board members
to get the rest of the economic engine going in the north, in the
long haul this bill will create a more fiscally responsible and
productive environment for all of us.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
speak on Bill C-55 today. Before I start my remarks I must
address a couple of points made by the hon. member from across
the way.
The business community in the Yukon and northern British
Columbia of course is supportive of this bill, but it really has no
choice. What this bill is doing is mitigating some very bad
legislation that was passed through the House in the spring of
this year. The mining industry felt this would be the only way it
would have an opportunity to stay in the mining business in the
Yukon after that legislation was passed. I had to bring that up
right off the top and say that is the reason there is some support
for this bill. It is not because the business community loves it, it
just feels it has no choice.
(1625)
What is this bill? It is an act to establish a board having
jurisdiction concerning disputes respecting surface rights in
respect of land in the Yukon territory and to amend other acts in
relation thereto. It sounds like something out of the Income Tax
Act.
What it really means is that there will be a board made up of a
chairperson and not less than two or more than ten other
members to be appointed by the minister of Indian affairs. Half
of the members other than the chairperson will be selected from
nominations by the Council of Yukon Indians and the other half
and the chairperson will be appointed by the minister. The only
qualification is that every member must be a resident of the
Yukon.
This bill relates to Bills C-33 and C-34. The passage of this
legislation is needed as a last step to fully enact the Yukon
self-government and land claims umbrella final agreements
which were rammed through Parliament in June and given royal
assent on July 7 of this year. Bill C-55 will establish a Yukon
surface rights board which is deemed to be needed for the
implementation of Bills C-33 and C-34 as an arbitration panel.
I would like to talk for a minute about Bills C-33 and C-34
and the land claim agreements that have been reached up in the
north in general in the Northwest Territories and in the Yukon. In
the last three or four years we have had four agreements: the
Gwich'in; the Sahtu, Dene and Metis agreement which was
passed this spring; Nunavut; and the latest is the Yukon land
claim agreement.
Those land claim agreements encompass 560,000 square
kilometres of land in the Northwest Territories and in the Yukon.
The four land claims will cost the taxpayers of Canada $1.5
billion. The existing aboriginal programs that are in force today
in Canada are guaranteed in perpetuity under the agreements
that have been reached. There are 46,932 natives affected by
these four agreements for a land mass of 560,000 square
kilometres, a land mass roughly equivalent to the size of France,
and a cost of $1.5 billion.
Of course the Reform Party took exception and takes
exception to these land claim settlements because we feel they
are too generous. Also the ongoing obligations of the federal
government with respect to aboriginal programs is in no way
affected by these agreements. They go on in perpetuity. Further,
new bureaucracies are created as a result of these agreements.
This is what we were saying in June and now we are seeing the
realization of that in this Yukon surface rights board.
We recognize that land claim settlements have to be dealt with
and we recognize there will be a land component as well as a
cash component. I do not think any thinking Canadian doubts
that. However, we do have a problem with the size of the land
transfers and the amount of money involved. We think that for
the population involved it is extraordinarily high and will affect
Canadians in the future. Right now there is not a hue and cry
because there are not very many non-aboriginals living the area.
However, it is the future we are thinking of. It is the future
opportunities in mining, forestry and other resource uses that we
have concerns about when we are in opposition to these bills.
Going on to the bill itself because half of the members other
than the chairperson will be appointed from nominations by the
Council of Yukon Indians and the other half will be appointed
directly by the minister of Indian affairs, patronage
appointments will be rampant.
7523
(1630 )
We all know what happens historically after every election
when we get a change in government from the Liberals to the
Conservatives. It will be the Reform the next time around. When
we get a change in government, we see harbour boards and
transportation boards, all kinds of boards that are stacked with
political appointments automatically, mysteriously overnight
all the faces change. We saw it after the last election in October
of last year.
A great deal of partisan political manoeuvring goes on with
these appointments. As much as our friends on the other side of
the House will hasten to say there will be no partisanship here,
of course there will be. That is the way it works.
We would like to see local business people submit a list of
names to the minister. From that list of names the minister could
make his appointments. At least that would remove some of the
partisan opportunities or the partisan influence that this board
might have in the future. It is very important for the mining
industry and it is very important for people to believe that this
board is going to be impartial.
It is a requirement that three people sit in judgment of each
individual case that is arbitrated by the board. One of these
people must be from the Council of Yukon Indians. However it is
not a requirement that one individual be from the business
industry or from the mining industry.
This board has the potential to be skewed and could give
decisions that are not based on the proper representation that we
think should be required.
The board will mediate disputes as to who may cross land.
What will happen on undeveloped settlement land is something
that is also a concern of ours. What will happen to
non-settlement lands? The board has a fair bit of influence over
lands which are not directly included in the land claims
agreement. This is something that we are concerned about and I
am sure the mining industry is as well.
This board parallels the work of other boards that are already
in place. We say therefore that it is duplication. Each board
member is allowed to use contract workers such as advisers who
are also paid on a per diem basis. Board members are paid on a
per diem basis. A multiple array of experts at DIAND are sitting
around fully capable of acting as contract workers, already
being paid by the taxpayers.
Why not select from these people who are already employed
rather than hiring contract workers at an additional expense to
the taxpayers?
Furthermore, because the work of the board is going to be on a
per diem basis, there is a possibility that the board's
deliberations will drag out far longer than they need to,
especially when the board members are being paid between
$200 and $300 a day.
We would like to see some kind of a mechanism to make the
board accountable for the length of time that it engages in
deliberations and to make sure that its actions are kept at an
absolute minimum.
The potential for conflict of interest is also there because
claims are not assumed to be reviewed by the entire board but by
a panel of three. At least one must be a member appointed to the
board from the Council of Yukon Indians and two others are to
be chosen by the chairperson. Could this not end with a blatant
bias or conflict if all were from the Council of Yukon Indians?
There are no rules to the contrary.
If the government is so concerned about allowing aboriginal
peoples to have a say in surface and subsurface rights or
subsurface uses of the land-I believe there is room for that-I
have to question the government's concern over the ability of
aboriginals in the Yukon to have a say in land use decisions. This
concern apparently does not apply to the Champagne and
Aishihik peoples whose traditional territories include the
Tatshenshini-Alsek area of northwest British Columbia.
(1635)
The Champagne-Aishihik people live primarily in the Yukon,
but their traditional territories are the Tatshenshini-Alsek area
and what is now the Kluane park. Economic opportunities were
lost to these peoples when the Kluane national park, also a part
of their traditional territories, was created in 1943.
They are now facing the prospect of seeing the
Tatshenshini-Alsek designated a world heritage site by the
United Nations. This proposal has been submitted to the United
Nations, and is supported by the B.C. and federal governments.
Our information is that the vote will be on December 14 of this
year. If it is adopted by the United Nations it is going to take
away Canada's sovereignty and ability to make decisions or
reverse decisions on this land for all time.
I recently came into the possession of a letter written by Chief
Paul Birckel who represents the Champagne-Aishihik First
Nations. He writes to the premier of British Columbia
expressing his concern, disappointment and frustration over the
fact that the province of British Columbia has designated this
area as a class A provincial park, without any consultation
whatsoever with the Champagne-Aishihik people.
Now the federal government has come on board by agreeing to
support the province of British Columbia having the area
designated as a world heritage site. I would like to read a small
bit from the letter that Chief Birckel has written to Premier
Harcourt:
7524
Therefore, I am requesting that you withdraw the support of your government to
the establishment of a world heritage site nomination for the Tatshenshini-Alsek
wilderness park area in British Columbia. Until some mutually satisfactory
resolution of Champagne and Aishihik First Nations aboriginal rights, titles and
interests in the area are dealt with. This area was initially established as a class A
provincial park in June 1993. This was done without any consultation with our First
Nations. This is a breach of the fiduciary responsibility that is owed by your
government and by Canada to our First Nations. Therefore I am appealing to you to
withdraw your support for the world heritage site nomination in our traditional area
in northern British Columbia.
I believe these people should have as much opportunity to be
involved in land use decisions in northern British Columbia as
the Council of Yukon Indians is in the Yukon territory. This does
not seem to be the case. I urge members on the other side of the
House to talk to their heritage minister and the Prime Minister,
and get them to agree to withdraw the nomination for the
Tatshenshini as a world heritage site at this time. There is no
support for it.
In conclusion, this bill is vague in its rules and regulations
concerning its principal responsibilities. It mentions minimum
requirements for Council for Yukon Indians involvement, but
none regarding its maximum. The notion of sufficient
negotiation as a pre-requisite for mediation is misleading and
has a great potential for favouritism and unfair treatment of
some cases and not for others.
The idea of a per diem rate of pay for board members and their
contracted staff, while mediating a case, may mask the reality of
the formation of another level of bureaucracy for some, but it is
the same old game from where I stand.
Nothing is stopping members from dragging out mediations
for the benefit of more pay. As well, I am appalled that the
government, which preaches democracy, is willing to let the
minister of Indian affairs appoint half of the board members
from a list of nominees submitted by the Council of Yukon
Indians, but not let a similar list of nominees be submitted by the
business industry. After all, is this board not meant to fairly
mediate the claims of both aboriginals and non-aboriginals?
Why then should the business community not be included on the
same basis? Why was the business community not consulted on
this bill and allowed to state their feelings on it before it is
implemented? As I said earlier, they are forced to agree. They
have no choice.
(1640)
The government seems to be finally waking up to the reality
that the national debt must be dealt with. We hear more and more
talk about it all the time, particularly from the finance minister,
but not from everybody else I might add. Since the board adds
another level of bureaucracy to the already top heavy
government, why then should not the now duplicated positions
be abolished?
This is what the Reform Party has been asking of the
government since day one, since we first came here last October.
Stop duplication. We cannot afford it. Be responsible with the
taxpayers' money.
Since the Yukon aboriginals want-and with closure invoked
on Bills C-33 and C-34-and have now attained a certain level
of self-government, why then do they not assist with the
payment for this board which will be mostly made up of and
hence representative of their interests? This would be too
logical for the government to understand.
I would like to end by urging members who believe in
fairness, honesty and accountability to oppose this bill as it
portrays the epitome of patronage and racial bias for which
Canadians should never be known.
I would like to remind the House that such land claims,
self-government and racially segregated mediation boards will
set a precedent for future negotiations with aboriginals which
Canadian taxpayers will be hard pressed to pay for.
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak on this very important legislation, Bill C-55,
the Yukon Surface Rights Board Act.
I would like to clarify, since there might be some
misunderstanding, particularly with regard to the previous
speaker's comments, that this is companion legislation to Bill
C-33, the Yukon First Nations Final Land Claims Settlement
Act and Bill C-34, the Yukon First Nations Self-Government
Agreement Act. Both of these bills were passed in Parliament in
the spring session but will not come into force until Bill C-55 is
passed in the House of Commons.
As someone who has represented Yukon for seven years and
who previously has been very involved in land claims settlement
in the Yukon, I urge all members to speedily pass Bill C-55 to
ensure that all Yukoners, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, have
the tools to move forward with the certainty that is necessary for
business, the respect and dignity accorded to First Nations in the
Yukon and that will lead toward self-sufficiency of the Yukon
territory.
This is a technical bill establishing a Yukon surface rights
board which will resolve dispute between parties, guaranteeing
access to holdings of private lands. That is an important and key
factor here. This board only comes into effect if there are
disputes that cannot be reconciled other than through this
process. However, there must be a process in place prior to that
which will attempt to settle disputes.
This legislation will settle disputes between persons holding
surface rights and those holding subsurface rights. It is
obviously very important in an area where mining is an
extremely important part of the economy. The board will also
deal with the amount of compensation for the expropriation of
settlement lands and the amount of compensation for pockets of
government lands retained within settlement lands.
7525
A number of comments were made previously about the
composition of the board. If I recall, the previous speaker said:
``it is a racially segregated board''.
(1645 )
The previous speaker from the Reform Party is quite wrong.
This is a board which attempts to reconcile and to bring together,
not to divide as I believe the previous speaker would do, peoples
in the territory.
The composition of this board as of many other boards under
the land claims legislation passed last spring in this Parliament
will include representation by First Nation's people.
Both in consultation on the land claims and self-government
legislation and on this legislation, many groups have been
consulted and approved of this legislation: the Yukon Chamber
of Mines, the Klondike Placer Miners Association, the Mining
Association of Canada, the Canadian Association of Petroleum
Producers, Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada,
the Yukon Territorial Government, all political parties within
the Yukon Territory, the Council for Yukon Indians and the
Gwich'in Tribal Council.
There have been a number of consultations with a wide
variety of business interests, private interests and with the
aboriginal people of Yukon.
As with the self-government and land claims legislation, this
piece of legislation, Bill C-55, is supported by a number of
groups in Yukon that want to see us move forward, that want to
see Yukon have the respect and dignity that we should be
accorded and to do something very significant not just for Yukon
but for Canada.
What we are showing can be done within Canada is that we
can respect the languages, the cultures and the historic traditions
of all peoples within a certain territory, and we can do it under
the flag of Canada.
In this time when there is discussion about the future and
integrity of this country surely it should be a source of pride to
all members of this House to have participated in this historic
piece of legislation, of which this forms the third piece, to
resolve these differences, to accommodate, to respect-let me
underline respect-all of these factors and do it within a united
Canada. This is historic.
I must address an issue raised by the previous speaker I
believe from Skeena who made the point and came to the
defence of Chief Paul Birckel from the Champagne Aishihik
Band. The Champagne Aishihik Band is one of the bands noted
in the land claims and self-government legislation. I must
assure the member for Skeena that I am aware of a number of
meetings that have taken place between the Champagne
Aishihik and the Government of British Columbia. He can rest
assured that the Government of British Columbia is taking very
seriously the issues raised by the band of the Champagne
Aishihik.
Where was the member for Skeena when his colleague in the
Reform Party stood in this House last spring and called the
people of the Champagne Aishihik Band lazy children and
called the people of Yukon and aboriginal people peoples who
were living in the south sea islands and conditions similar to
that? Where was the member from the Reform Party in
defending Chief Paul Birckel and the people of that band at that
time?
It really is ironic that the member stands in this House today
supposedly defending the people of the Champagne Aishihik
Band yet last spring stood in this House voting against this very
legislation that would enable the people of the Champagne
Aishihik Band and other First Nation bands in Yukon to become
more self-sufficient and to recognize their historic and
traditional rights.
This kind of double talk certainly does not foster the future of
our country. We are talking here about how we as a country from
diverse regions with diverse languages, cultures and traditions
live together. The United Nations has said in the past that we are
one of the best countries in the world in which to live. Some in
this House would dispute that. Most would not.
(1650)
This particular piece of legislation completing the land claims
and self-government legislation for Yukon respects and fosters
the future of Canada, a united Canada and one that respects all
peoples.
Pursuant to this legislation there have been some concerns
raised, I mentioned earlier the one by the member for Skeena, in
implicating that this piece of legislation contains an area of bias.
That illustrates the profound difference between the philosophy
of the New Democratic Party and the philosophy of the Reform
Party. We feel as New Democrats that it is our job as elected
representatives in this House, representing Canada as well as
our own ridings, to bring people together in a positive way rather
than find ways to divide people.
If our country is to move forward in the 21st century the
responsibility we as legislators hold in this crucial time leading
up to that period we must find ways for provinces, territories,
different groups in this country to come together. It is shocking
to me that there are people in this House who would undermine
that objective.
I believe that the consensus that has been developed in Yukon
around this piece of legislation and the companion pieces, Bills
C-33 and C-34, illustrates that it is possible to achieve great
things in this country. It does not come easily. This has been 21
years in negotiation. There have been many changes. There have
been many people from all parts of the community who have
been involved, some sadly who are even no longer with us.
7526
With the passing of this legislation and the support of this
House we will see a real step forward for Yukon and I believe for
Canada.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would ask the hon. member representing Yukon, and I
know that her discourse was passionate and heartfelt, is it better
in her estimation to pretend problems do not exist, to consider
everything that is done in this House on behalf of the Indians of
Canada since the beginning of our recorded history, if the
perpetuation of that and the situation that the aboriginals in our
country live in today is representative of the kind of compassion
that this House has afforded them, if this is worthy of
continuing, or perhaps some of the foundations and some of the
ideas that this House taken as a self-righteous mantra should be
questioned.
Ms. McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, if I understand the member's
question correctly I think it is an appropriate question. It is true
that this Parliament historically has not respected the First
Nations people of this country, historically has implemented
legislation which resulted for example in Indians not having the
vote until the 1960s. It has passed legislation in the past that has
made a distinction between who and who is not an Indian
through defining status Indians.
Historic wrongs can be righted. What is being acknowledged
in this legislation is the right of First Nations people who were
not defeated in a war, who were not a conquered people, to the
lands which they occupied before both the hon. member's and
my ancestors came here.
The honour in this form of legislation and the honour that
comes to this Parliament with this legislation is that we can
acknowledge that those were historically wrong decisions made
in the cultural context of the time and that it is possible to
address those in a way that benefits First Nations people,
acknowledges their rights and responsibilities, but also, as do
this legislation and the companion pieces, Bills C-33 and C-34,
serve to enhance the rights and responsibilities of all Yukoners.
(1655 )
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
make a couple of comments and then I ask a question of the hon.
member for Yukon.
I would like to say that because the Reform Party and I in
particular was against the legislation that was in front of the
House, it does not mean that we are against resolving land
claims. We are against the kind of land claims that have been
brought in front of this House today for the reasons that I
outlined: the generosity of the agreements, the fact that it
created more bureaucracy and the fact that entitlement to
existing programs was guaranteed in perpetuity under those
agreements.
If the hon. member is as concerned as she appears to be for the
welfare of native people, maybe she will join with me and go and
talk to her friends in Victoria who have designated the
Tatshenshini-Alsek area a world class park, a class A provincial
park. Then maybe she will join with me in trying to convince our
friends across the way that we will withdraw the nomination to
declare that area a world class heritage site.
I ask the hon. member will she join with me in those efforts?
Ms. McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, certainly I again think it
ironic that the member for Skeena has suddenly discovered the
interests of the First Nations people of Yukon. I can assure the
member that as the representative for Yukon, representing all of
the people of Yukon, Chief Paul Birckel has been very effective
in making his views known to the British Columbia government.
The British Columbia government has responded.
While I am the representative of the Champagne Aishihik
band in this House, I have always been extremely impressed and
respectful of the ability of Chief Paul Birckel and the
Champagne Aishihik band to very effectively represent
themselves. Again I underline this is one of the four bands in the
legislation that came before this House in the spring. I think it
would have made the argument of the hon. member for Skeena
much stronger had he supported the Champagne Aishihik band
at that time.
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, last week in this House the minister of Indian affairs
indicated that the Reform caucus had never supported an
aboriginal bill in this House. Last week we had already
supported Bill C-36, the Split Lake Cree agreement in northern
Manitoba. That went through third reading and we supported it
at third reading last Friday.
The member for Yukon stereotyped our caucus in her speech
and the member for Yukon would be the first one to complain if
anyone else were to do any stereotyping. I would like the
member for Yukon to answer to that.
Ms. McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I think the people who were
stereotyped here were the First Nations by the member who
called them lazy children and their treatment being like a south
sea island. I am greatly disappointed in the leader of the Reform
Party who then promoted that member to the front benches.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon.
member for Burnaby-Kingsway-Human Rights; the hon.
member for Chambly-Customs Brokers; the hon. member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce-VIA Rail; the hon. member for
Kindersley-Lloydminster-Ethics.
7527
[English]
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a privilege and an honour, maybe with a bit of
hesitation, to speak to this bill today.
(1700 )
As I was listening to the hon. member from Yukon, I threw a
few pages from my speech away. I thought I probably did not
have the insight into native land settlements or land agreements,
but I do have some insight into what division means and I do
have some insight into what co-operation means.
As a farmer I must say I have never seen any farm operations
succeed when they started dividing and becoming independent.
When a father owned all the property and all the machinery and
had control of the situation, the family usually worked together
very well. There was very little infighting. However when some
of the members felt that their wisdom was probably greater than
that of the founder who had built the corporation or the company
and they wanted to divide and become separate little nations, it
seemed to run into problems.
Sooner or later the governor was neglected. They were setting
up boards which consisted of neighbours trying to settle
disputes in the farming operation. Generally there was conflict.
There was hurt. Usually it wound up that family members did
not even want to see each other or recognize each other as being
in the same family.
It really worries me when we start addressing our problems by
creating separate little nations. We have talked so much about
the Quebec issue. I have explained very often in this House that
unity cannot be created by division. That seems to be so
contradictory. That is one thing we are missing with these bills.
I was very much opposed to Bill C-33 and Bill C-34 for one
very simple reason. I did have those bills analyzed by some of
my native friends. I asked them to give me direction on how I
should vote on those two bills. The feedback I got was: ``If you
vote for Bill C-33 and Bill C-34, I will lose my hunting rights. I
will lose my fishing rights that I had in this great country of
ours. From now on I will have to go and ask each individual
nation to have those privileges''. That really hit home to me.
How is that type of feeling going to solve the problems of what
happened probably a century or so ago?
The other problem I had with these bills was the way they
were debated and the way they were rammed through this
House. When true democracy is neglected it generally is the
beginning of human rights violations and the beginning of
unrest and civil disobedience which in a lot of cases ends in
revolt or revolution. That is happening now in eastern bloc
countries.
After being in the Soviet Union in 1990-91 and looking at the
conditions some of the native people enjoy today, I wonder what
we are grumbling about in this country. No matter where we live
in this great country of ours today, we have nothing to complain
about. We have not got people starving. We have not got people
freezing to death for lack of clothing. We have not got people
killing each other just so they can get to the food supply.
We have a federal government today that has a great desire to
treat everybody equally. The government in previous years has
not only passed laws that are supposed to work against
discrimination, it has passed laws that are going to be
guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. When I
see that now we are creating separate nations and these laws that
work so well are not going to be applicable, what are we getting
into?
(1705)
When I look at this bill that is setting up a board with 50 per
cent of the people appointed by the Yukon natives council and 50
per cent by the federal government, I wonder why. I own
property and there are all kinds of acts that protect my rights
should the mining companies or oil drilling companies want
access to that land. If I am not happy with the decision these acts
force upon me I have the full right to go to the Supreme Court of
Canada but I am also liable for the costs that are incurred
through that. That is one deterrent I think is very effective in
avoiding a lot of disputes we would probably otherwise have.
It seems to me that this board will have the power to make
some decisions. If the First Nations do not feel the decision is
right, they can appeal to the Yukon courts. If the First Nations
feel that ruling has gone against them, what happens then? Do
they go to the Supreme Court of Canada? Are the laws enforced
by the native law enforcement agency or the Canadian law
enforcement agency? This is something that really bothers me
because I am sure there will be disputes where the resolution
will not be acceptable to either side and law enforcement will
have to be used.
I listened to the hon. member for Churchill the other day when
he said: ``My people have made a commitment that we want to
live in peace and enjoyment of the land and the resources with
generations in the future''. How does that pertain to these land
settlement claims or independent nations? ``We want to live
with each other, we want to co-operate but we want to
separate''. To me that is a recipe for disaster.
When I try to analyze these bills in light of my own
experiences with other situations, I must say we are binding our
future generations to dispute after dispute after dispute. It does
not seem possible that these boards under the conditions in
which they are set up will ever be able to be disbanded. We will
continually have problems in developing these huge tracts of
land.
7528
We in the Reform Party are so often classified or stereotyped
as not being beneficial to other people. Personally I would rather
donate half of my resources to the next generation than to find
out in later years that my children or their children are fighting
and forcing a settlement on each other.
We see that happening today in the former Yugoslavia. All of
a sudden they have decided they can live better as separate little
nations. It takes foreign countries to come in and try to solve the
disputes.
(1710)
I would never be able to rest in my grave if I were party to
some agreements that in the future should have to be resolved by
military force or by some other type of unlawful activity as I
would call it.
I think back to the 1940s. I can remember the situation right
after the 1930s and how the white people in our community and
the native people shared their assets and their food because
everybody was in a tough situation. If we could get back that
type of concern I do not think we would be talking about these
huge land settlement deals.
It worries me when I see $8 billion to $10 billion being paid to
our native brothers every year and we are not being given one
little bit of recognition for that.
Ms. McLaughlin: We have sisters.
Mr. Hoeppner: Well sisters, brothers, whoever it is. I would
think that the government has never been able to print money.
The government's money comes from the taxpayers and it only
comes from taxpayers who are working and sharing it with other
people. If that $8 billion to $10 billion is not sharing I would like
to know how much it would take before it was called sharing.
Right now with the attitude of the sharing that our government
has had, we are in debt to the tune of $550 billion which some
day either the native children or my children will have to repay.
How this is going to be accomplished I do not know, but I wish
the hon. member for Yukon could give me some suggestions. I
would surely support her in any way that we could resolve that
issue so that it could be settled in some better way.
Eventually when financial disaster does come upon a nation it
creates a lot of other problems. That is one thing we have to
realize with all these settlements. If we are going to be fair to
future generations we had better be fair to the generations here
today. We will be forcing them to pay something we were not
willing to pay.
With that I will close my remarks. I wish this House would
make some decision that would not just benefit us today but that
would also benefit future generations.
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member talked about ``laws that worked so well over the
years''. I wonder if the member was talking about the laws that
established residential schools, or the laws that resulted in
aboriginal children being taken away from their parents. Would
it be the laws that prevented aboriginal people from voting?
Would it be those laws that took away the right of aboriginal
people who fought for their country or became a doctor or a
lawyer to be identified as a status Indian?
The member is so much against this bill and its dispute
settlement capabilities. As a member of the Reform Party that
supported, ill advised I would suggest, the U.S.-Canada trade
deal and NAFTA, does he think we should do away with the
dispute settlement mechanism in that trade deal?
Mr. Hoeppner: Mr. Speaker, I am quite convinced there were
laws and institutions that abused our native brothers and sisters.
It makes me very sad that I lived to pay testimony to that.
(1715 )
I think through some of the law reform that we have had we
are at a stage now where that should not happen, not nearly as
easily.
I would also like to remind the hon. member for Yukon that
the white people were not always here. I read in history where
there was self-government by these native people. They did also
have problems. They had a right at that time to live very
peacefully. They had a right to live without starvation. When we
read the history books it did happen.
I am not blaming them for that but we have to realize that
through history there have been problems. As we have learned
from these problems I think we have become wiser. That is what
we have experienced through the thirties and the forties
probably where a lot of abuse was happening to these First
Nations and it makes me very sad that it did.
I also note that if we are going to pass laws and make
commitments which we have to honour with future generations'
wealth we are asking for severe problems and a lot worse
conditions in this country than we have today.
Ms. McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, the member is against this
bill which has a dispute settlement mechanism. Would he also
say that because the trade deal between Canada and the U.S. has
a dispute settlement mechanism it should be done away with as
well?
Mr. Hoeppner: Mr. Speaker, I would say if we had one
government and the same laws we would not need that trade
dispute settlement mechanism. Here we are creating more
governments, more laws and we are forcing more dispute
settling mechanisms on our society.
7529
If we were one nation with the United States we would not
even have trade laws. This is a very good example. If we were a
North American community we would probably have some of
these problems resolved before they ever happened. Because we
are different nations we fight for each right. It is only natural.
That is why I tried to explain that when a father allows his son
to go into different operations usually it brings problems with it.
That is what I have been trying to point out. Division does not
create unity and unity does not create division.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to participate in the debate on this bill. Considering that
we supported Bill C-33 and Bill C-34 on self-government and
land claims in the Yukon, it will come as no surprise that we will
also support Bill C-55.
I want to use a different approach regarding this issue. I have
my own way of dealing with native issues. I do not claim to have
a new approach, but I do think it is important to go and meet
those who have been the victims of injustices for a long time.
Consequently, I have been to the Yukon and I would like to tell
you about the attitude and the atmosphere which prevail there
following, among other changes, the passing of the two
aforementioned bills in the previous session, as well as the
anticipated passing of Bill C-55.
It was my first visit in the Yukon, and I was accompanied by
my 13-year-old daughter, who was discovering the western and
north-western regions of the country. We were both amazed at
the beauty of this place and astonished to see how people had
settled here well before we came and shared such a lovely
country. The Yukon River, for instance, is extraordinarily
beautiful. When I went there, during the summer, the glaciers
were melting, and this produced a kind of blue I have never seen
in our rivers here in Quebec. It was fascinating to see the beauty
of the countryside and also the wonderful atmosphere of the way
of life in the Yukon.
(1720)
I had read about the gold rush in the Klondike, and about what
today is called Dawson City, and I had a chance to go there and
see how mining operations destroyed some of this lovely
countryside when they ruthlessly extracted the riches that were
there, riches that did not necessarily benefit the First Nations.
I also discovered what was for instance the midnight sun,
something we do not have here, but they do over there. The
native people took me to the top of a mountain, The Dome, and
at 11.30 p.m., I saw the sunset. I was both impressed by the sight
and touched by the people's gesture.
Another surprise was the warm welcome I received. We saw
this tremendous capacity of Canadian native people and
aboriginal people throughout the world to share what they have.
These people do not feel they have been conquered. They see
themselves as the first occupants and consider that the arrival of
the Europeans was an opportunity for them to share their
territory and their wealth.
Unfortunately, as a result of the greed of the Europeans,
because that is what it was, what we did at the time was to
establish a kind of social contract with these people: We will
take care of you, we will take 95 per cent of your wealth and
confine you to reserves and we will pay for whatever you need.
This caused a lot of problems, and I will get back to this later on,
but in any case, we can say that this was a case of blatant
injustice which we are now trying to remedy here in the Yukon,
to some small extent.
We started with the two bills I mentioned earlier, and now Bill
C-55, which will make the two other bills operational, so that
we are now waiting to pass Bill C-55. As I said before, C-55
makes the two other bills operational and also brings a measure
of justice to these people.
In fact, people have recognized for decades, for centuries
even, that there was an injustice. The native peoples realized
that there was an injustice, and 21 years ago they began a
process of negotiation leading to the adoption of two bills prior
to this session and to the consideration of the bill before us, Bill
C-55, which as I have said will make the two earlier bills
operational.
I think it worth reflecting for a few moments on the first two
bills. What exactly is self-government? Many are seeking a
definition, but is an exact definition important, when it can
mean different things to different people? I turned to the
dictionary and found that self-government has to do with the
importance of being politically independent to direct one's own
destiny.
We have several examples, at the present time, of the
non-performance of the Indian Act. Lengthy speeches are not
necessary. In terms of socio-economic development, native
peoples are probably the most disadvantaged group of people in
Canada. And this morning I was present when the health
committee noted the seriousness of the health and social
problems they face.
The simple fact is that the social contract that existed at the
time to take responsibility for native peoples and their wealth is
no longer tenable and never was, and we are correcting the
situation. Do aboriginal peoples want to take part in this
process? I believe they do. If we are speaking about Yukon, there
is a desire to take responsibility for their own lives, and I would
say this is the case in most of Canada. Native peoples are
themselves realizing that the government can no longer
effectively pay for them and provide paternalistic protection,
while at the same time respecting their particular conditions and
values.
7530
I believe that in the Yukon, as elsewhere, native peoples are
realizing that the solution to their problems is through
self-government.
(1725)
The will of the natives to assume responsibility for
themselves is there. The feeling I get from the government of
Canada is one of wanting to withdraw from the Indian Act. I
think the minister did make announcement to that effect also. Of
course, this is not going to happen overnight. Pilot projects are
under way, in Manitoba for example, to examine the possibility
for First Nations to withdraw from the Indian Act.
But resolving the self-government issue would go a long way
toward solving the problem of withdrawing from the Indian Act,
so that the government can go ahead with the dismantling as
soon as possible. On this subject, the minister and the
government have referred to their intention to put an end to their
trusteeship over Indians. The Bloc Quebecois will keep a close
eye on this. The government has ventured to say that it should be
abolished. Now, we in the Official Opposition will make sure
that this is done properly.
It has to be done with respect for the cultures involved. On our
side, we are from a European background originally. The
aboriginal peoples were the first inhabitants of this land. How
do we reconcile all of this? Our self-government negotiation
process actually leads to this. It leads us to say: ``What can be
devolved in terms of autonomy, level of activity, legislation?''
Such choices should allow them to live in harmony with us and
be in keeping with our legislation.
I think that the kind of agreement we have before us indeed
provides a middle ground that enables the First Nations to steer
away from the Indian Act, to assume responsibility for
themselves and to live in perfect harmony with our laws. They
also attach a great deal of importance to gaining control over
their own administration because their health system, for
example, is not the same as ours. They have a much more
holistic approach to health. They are more prone to using
healing circles, a much more gregarious approach than the
curative approach we currently have in Canadian society.
The same with justice. We note that, in extremely remote
communities, they often have their own law enforcement
system. Healing circles take charge of young offenders or
individuals with adjustment difficulties. They solve the
problems they encounter themselves. We are not even aware that
when we barge in with our way of looking at the situation it often
is inappropriate and just makes the problem worse.
All this to say that, to deal with self-government, we have this
bill and it is important to have such a bill. It will also be
important to implement it.
How do we go about it? The hon. member who spoke before
me said, ``We give them $8 billion a year''. It is not quite $8
billion; I think it is around $6 billion. But if we want this to end,
we must help them take control of their own destiny.
We need a territory that is large enough and contains enough
resources so that we can stop spending millions of dollars on
education, health care, etc., and let them take control of their
own destiny. That is why we will allow them to tax or collect
royalties from all their lands. Giving them land in the Yukon is a
solution which, I think, will allow them to develop their own
territory to compensate for the shortfall due to the withdrawal of
our financial assistance.
Compensation in the order of $242 million will enable these
people to make their decisions now. These people will no longer
have to deal with federal officials trying to impose their
programs. They will create their own programs, which I think is
something worth mentioning.
We must, of course, have confidence in these people. I have
confidence in them because I have seen them in action. I have
seen how serious they are about taking control of their own
destiny. I think that we must simply recognize that the First
Nations will be in a much better position than federal officials in
Ottawa to implement programs and that we must trust them.
Quebec is in a good position to help in this regard. The James
Bay Agreement and the motion passed by the National
Assembly show that Quebec can be proud of being a pioneer in
the transfer of powers to aboriginal nations. I see Quebec's
James Bay Agreement as a model which, in my opinion, has
been used for many existing agreements on self-government.
(1730)
I remind you that this model was entirely financed by the
Quebec government. The takeover and the relationship between
the native community and the Quebec government are getting
closer. This is demonstrated by the way Quebec's current
government is handling joint management with the natives.
Important and judicious negotiations are continuing in this
regard.
Before moving on to the content and clauses of Bill C-55, I
must mention a few things that I find regrettable. I do not want to
appear overly critical to my friends from the Reform Party, but it
must be noted that immigrants, in my opinion, are not very
respectful of Natives. I am willing to give them the benefit of the
doubt and say that there are financial and territorial implications
to be looked at, as we are doing in committee and right here, but
we know at the outset that they have no respect for natives taking
control of their own destiny or for their ability to do so.
I listened to the speeches made by some members, including
the hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap, who does not think
that any native group should be given self-government rights
7531
exceeding those of municipal governments. I am sorry, but they
were here first. They are more than municipal governments.
In our parliamentary guide, we in the Bloc Quebecois say that
these people are entitled to self-government. They are nations,
just as there is a Quebec nation, an Anglo-Saxon nation, an
Acadian nation; there are native nations and it is important to
point that out.
The previous speaker said that he was afraid for his fishing
and hunting rights. We can all say that the arrival of Europeans
here upset their hunting and fishing rights as well. It is the
wrong approach to say that reviewing the rules of the game will
prevent us from hunting and fishing in the Yukon. I myself have
gone there and I invite the hon. member to go there too.
I was taken fishing. It did not prevent me from being very well
received on native territory. I could well have been told that
those resources belong to the native people and that I was not
welcome. On the contrary. As we have seen over the centuries,
native people know how to share and I was glad to be invited to
go and fish there. I think that fishing and hunting rights will be
maintained.
I also heard Reformers call them spoiled children. I heard the
Reform Party compare them to people on southern islands. I
gave you some statistics and opinions a while ago: that is false.
People who live near the 60th parallel are not vacationers. They
are not on a holiday, when you realize that unemployment is 50
per cent. People on holiday do not care about the unemployment
rate, they can afford a trip south.
Many of these people cannot afford as much and I think that
the kind of example put forward by the Reform Party does not
help the debate. I admit that there may be reasons or financial
arguments but it is harder for me to accept arguments based on
mistrust of native people.
On Bill C-55 as such, what is interesting in this bill is that a
board is created to settle disputes. Settling disputes is important
because there are issues involving trappers and mining and
forestry companies. These people will certainly have disputes at
some point. Bill C-55 will give the native people, who will be
well represented on the board, a means to settle such disputes. It
is much better than what we have in the rest of Canada. I think
that the failures elsewhere in Canada must have inspired the bill
now before us.
(1735)
The example of Split Lake comes to mind. Indeed, even if an
agreement was reached with one of the nations, the whole water
system of that part of the country was affected and these people
have practically no recourse, except arbitration. If there was a
board located closer to them, such disputes would be solved
much more quickly.
The Bloc Quebecois will pursue its work in committee.
Obviously, we support Bill C-55, although there may be room
for improvement regarding certain provisions. We will do our
work seriously. We will review the bill and we will examine it
more in detail at the committee level. At this stage, the Bloc
Quebecois can only support that legislation. After all, we made
speeches to support these people in Yukon who, for generations,
put all their hopes in a successful negotiation process, before
finally seeing their dream come true in the last session of this
Parliament. Under the circumstances, it would be very
inconsistent to now oppose Bill C-55.
I want to say that both myself and my Bloc colleagues have
confidence in native people. We do recognize, for example, that
they were the first ones here, that they deserve more respect, and
that they should have full control of their destiny. And to
recognize those things implies a great deal of confidence. But
we do have total confidence in native people.
Programs which, until now, were run in Ottawa will now be
administered much closer to native communities, and I hope to
never again hear negative, if not nasty, comments about natives.
These people follow the debates of the House of Commons and I
think that they sometimes have a wrong impression of
parliamentary democracy. Their own approach is based on
reaching a consensus but, more importantly, they are guided by a
profound need for respect.
I am among those who have the greatest respect for native
people. I do recognize that they were subjected to many
injustices and these have to be corrected. The previous bills
corrected those injustices, and Bill C-55 will confirm the
autonomy of 14 First Nations in Yukon. Four of them have
reached agreements, while ten others are in the process of doing
so. They will be heading for self-government and I know they
will take care of their communities, because I trust them on this
issue.
I think the federal government will be able to save some
money by granting the native people a land base that will help
them grow and become much more self-sufficient.
Of course, since I am from Quebec and well-versed in
independence issues, I fully understand why a First Nation or
some First Nations would want their independence, and this is
why we are extremely pleased to support Bill C-55, although we
will want to clean up the legislation to ensure that the bill
reflects our vision. As far as the substance of the bill is
concerned, we think that self-government for the people in
Yukon and elsewhere is very important and we are pleased to tell
the Yukon residents who are watching us, the native peoples in
Yukon, that the Bloc Quebecois will support Bill C-55.
7532
[English]
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my Bloc colleague from Saint-Jean who just spoke in
my view painted some scenarios essentially that do not exist and
painted scenes of conflict where it does not exist.
We have talked on many occasions about a municipal style of
self-government in committee and in this House. I also talk
about it quite publicly.
(1740 )
We have a living example in the province of British Columbia
with the Sechelt band. That form of self-government has proven
for that particular band to be very progressive. It is what the
people want and they are thriving under that form of
self-government.
There is no reason to suggest that form of self-government
would not be a very appropriate form of self-government in
many other jurisdictions. I want to set the record straight in that
area.
What we have heard here is the Quebec provincial agenda
being promoted on the rest of Canada. The Bloc is not proving to
be the steward of federal or other provincial resources. When I
heard the member talking about James Bay what I heard was a
promotion of 100 per cent provincial involvement in these
issues. I find that to be a contradiction in terms as to what we are
talking about today. Perhaps my colleague could offer some
clarification in that area.
[Translation]
Mr. Bachand: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell my colleague who
also sits on the aboriginal affairs committee that what I quoted
the hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap as saying is not
intended to indicate that there is no possible application of the
municipal model. I merely quoted the hon. member for
Okanagan-Shuswap as saying that no aboriginal group should
be given rights to self-government exceeding those of
municipal governments.
If a municipal government model applies, as it seems to be the
case with Sechelts, then it is fine. But I do not think it is
appropriate to put First Nations on the same level as municipal
governments. That is all. I did not reject the municipal model. I
only rejected the terms used by the hon. member for
Okanagan-Shuswap.
As for the James Bay case, I must reiterate that it continues to
be a model according to me and to the Bloc Quebecois. The
Canadian government did not invest any money in it. This was
promoted directly by the Quebec government and I do not think
we have some secret agenda that we would want to hide from the
Reform Party. As we know, the Quebec government has close
ties with them. They have their own way to deal with issues.
Here, at the federal level, we do things differently.
We examine all proposals and legislation before us on their
merit and, of course, sometimes we suggest amendments and
sometimes we support some bills. We even sometimes reject
legislation. But this does not mean that we have a secret agenda.
We only want to work with the aboriginal people and to get the
best results possible, based on mutual trust.
[English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on debate rather than questions and comments, I would
forego a moment of my time and ask the member for Saint-Jean,
who was so effusive in his praise for the settlement in C-33 and
C-34 I believe it was, that this legislation enables, if he would
then use this as a model for a land settlement with the northern
Quebec Cree on exactly the same terms, exactly the same
conditions, exactly the same land base, exactly the same surface
and subsurface rights and exactly the same money.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Since a question was asked before the
hon. member began his speech, I will authorize the hon. member
for Saint-Jean to answer.
(1745)
Mr. Bachand: Mr. Speaker, I must admit that James Bay is
indeed a model, but self-government cannot be applied
everywhere from Halifax to Vancouver. We can see that a form
of self-government respecting their past and their traditions is
working for the Sechelt Band. Another formula was applied to
the James Bay Crees and we can come up with yet another
formula for Northern Quebec.
So, when we negotiate with the Northern Inuit, we will see
how to apply self-government to their case by listening to what
they have to say and what proposals they put forward during
negotiations. Thus we will be in a position to react. I simply
want to say to my colleague that there is no single way to
implement self-government, there is no predetermined
framework. Self-government is function of the tradition of the
First Nations to whom it applies as well as of the climate that
prevails in their negotiations with the governments.
[English]
Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, could you tell me the time that
I have.
The Deputy Speaker: The member has 20 minutes but there
is a bell at six o'clock.
Mr. McClelland: Members of the Bloc are always quick to
say what we should do, how we should do it and with whose
money we should do it. However when it comes around to
whether or not it is good for them, all of a sudden we see people
slip and slide. It is absolutely amazing. We certainly cannot nail
them down in the House on anything they would do. I
congratulate them on their ability to tap dance around issues that
have to be talked about, that have to be addressed. In fairness,
when all
7533
is said and done it is my hope and desire that members of the
Bloc will be living with it because we will continue to be
Canadians one and all together. That is my greatest hope.
I also thank the hon. member for Yukon for participating in
the debate. She brought another perspective to the issue. We sit
through these prepared speeches and we listen to what each
other has to say about various issues. However when someone
can inject a little emotion into the debate it tends to make the
debate much more interesting. The member injected some
emotion into the debate. She called into question the motivation
of specific members of my party as individuals and the party as a
whole. I think she cast unfair aspersions on what our role or our
function is in Parliament.
I would ask if there is anyone in the whole country, including
members of the Bloc, who could think for even one second that
what we as Canadians have done to our native brothers and
sisters is something we should be proud of. I am wondering if
anybody here thinks it is something worthy of repeating.
When a party comes into the House and questions the wisdom
of legislation brought forward by the government, first that is its
job. Second, maybe there is something to be learned from it.
The fact of the matter is that as an individual I did not become
sensitized to the situation of Indians in our country yesterday or
when I was elected. I live in western Canada. I was brought up
and lived among Indians and with Indians going to school with
me who lived in residential schools. We played together. We had
fun together. We have relations together through marriage and
adoption. We are in a much closer relationship with Indians in
western Canada than exists in other parts of the country. It is
very much part and parcel of our daily lives in many instances. It
is absurd to suggest that somehow it is anti-Indian or racist
because our views do not match government legislation or the
views of an interest group or someone who is going to benefit
and we question it. It is our function. It is our job. It is our duty
to question legislation. It is what all of us are supposed to be
doing.
(1750)
If we did that more often, members on the government side
and members on the opposition side, and not just automatically
salute the flag because it is on the pole, maybe we would not be
in the miserable condition we are as a country with debt that we
cannot possibly pay in our generation. Our generation and the
generation before us got us into this mess.
If we are bankrupt as a nation for our boneheaded decisions,
does it matter whether we are bankrupt Indians or bankrupt
non-Indians? Does it matter if we are bankrupt immigrants? If
our country does not have the funds to pay our commitments,
does it matter where we came from? It does not. We have to start
thinking in terms of our responsibilities to future generations,
not to the next election.
As I mentioned earlier, I received a letter from a constituent
the other day which said that the difference between a statesman
and a politician is that a politician looks to the next election and
a statesman to the next generation. Maybe we should be
spending more time thinking about the next generation, less
time about the next election, and a whole lot less time trying to
make political points or political hay out of misrepresentation
just so we can win another election. It is demeaning and it is
below the dignity of the House.
Another question in the debate is our relationship with
Indians in Canada. We have to go from this father knows best
Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
making all the decisions and put the responsibility for decision
making with the people affected by it. There is nothing, at least
in my opinion, that will do more to create self-sufficiency and
self-respect, the cornerstone of advancement, than
responsibility.
We cannot give people vast or even small sums of money and
say: ``There is more where this comes from. Don't worry about
being responsible about spending it and looking after it. It is a
bottomless pit''. We have to give with the opportunity to
generate wealth and income the responsibility for doing it. If we
are not prepared to do that we are not going to achieve anything.
Before we start doing all this, let us start figuring out a way to
dismantle the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs and
pass off the responsibility to the people to whom it should be
given, that is the Indians themselves. The cornerstone upon
which success will be built is self-respect and pride.
I would like to spend a couple of minutes talking about
another situaion, the whole notion of two row wampum. Last
winter a group of Indians were demonstrating in front of the
West Block and around Parliament Hill. Last winter in Ottawa
was brutally cold. After about three days of these people
standing around trying to get attention I looked at them and
thought they really had to care about what they are doing to
stand around in the cold and not hire somebody to do it for them.
I talked with them for a while and got to know a couple of the
people involved. One fellow in particular, Stuart Myiow, was
from Akwasasne. He is the publisher of a small newspaper, The
Eagle's Cry. He wanted to get the attention of parliamentarians
because he said we had broken the two row wampum, which
means equal but separate. It means that they cannot have their
feet in two different canoes at the same time: when Indians take
on the mantle of the white man they are no longer Indians. How
can they be both? According to him it brings out a whole host of
social problems, identity problems, and problems in how they
are going to go forward into the future.
7534
(1755)
It caused me to think about the difference between collective
rights and individual rights. Perhaps we basically have grown up
understanding and valuing individual initiative and individual
rights.
It is my experience that not all but many Indian bands and
many Indians are far more collective in the way they relate to
each other and to society as a whole. If we are ever to bridge this
chasm and get on to the future, in my opinion we are going to
have to respect the tradition of the Indian people to the sense of
collective responsibilities.
This means, as the hon. member for Saint-Jean mentioned
earlier, that perhaps the justice system we have brought to North
America is not suitable to the Indians. The recidivism rate
among Indians is far higher than that in the general population.
Indians in Canada comprise something like 5 per cent of the
population, yet they are something like 25 per cent to 30 per cent
or even more of incarcerated people. It is vastly
disproportionate. In that case we should be looking at
non-traditional means of changing the habit through what is
being attempted now in the west: sweat lodges and the belief in
the collective meting out of justice.
We certainly are in opposition to the particular bill, not
because of the fact that it sets up a dispute settling board.
Obviously that is needed and it is patterned after the one in
Alberta anyway. We are in opposition because we are in
opposition to Bill C-33 and Bill C-34 which this bill enables.
We are in opposition not to create problems for the Indians but
because we want some real solutions. In this debate we want to
talk about real issues and to deal with things as they are, not as
we would wish them to be.
We have to understand that there are all kinds of vested
interests in the debate, not just the vested interests of the
department of Indian affairs, people in Parliament, Indian bands
or leaders of various Indian bands. We did not get into this
situation by accident. We got into this situation because we were
cross-threaded in everything we have done as far as the Indians
are concerned ever since day one.
More of the same is not going to get us out of the mess we are
in. We need fresh thinking. We need new vision and, above all,
we need to question every move and every word that comes out
of the Liberal government which got us into this mess in the first
place.
The House resumed from October 31 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-56, an act to amend the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act, be read the second time and
referred to a committee
The Deputy Speaker: It being 6 p.m., pursuant to Standing
Order 45(5)(a) the House will now proceed to the taking of the
deferred division on second reading of Bill C-56, an act to
amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 95)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bellemare
Benoit
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bélair
Caccia
Calder
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chatters
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Culbert
Cummins
de Jong
DeVillers
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Eggleton
English
Epp
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier)
Gerrard
Gilmour
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Harvard
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jennings
Johnston
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
MacLellan (Cape/Cap Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manning
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
7535
McCormick
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Parrish
Patry
Penson
Peric
Peters
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Riis
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robinson
Rock
Rompkey
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
NAYS
Members
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bouchard
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Marchand
Mercier
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
St-Laurent
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne-44
PAIRED MEMBERS
Members
Asselin
Bernier (Gaspé)
Brien
Deshaies
Discepola
Fillion
Lefebvre
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
Manley
Ouellet
Peterson
Pillitteri
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Walker
(1825)
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion adopted.
Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee
on the Environment and Sustainable Development.
(Bill read the second time and referred to committee.)
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to order made Thursday,
October 27, 1994, the House will now proceed to the taking of
the deferred division at second reading stage of Bill C-53, an act
to establish the Department of Canadian Heritage and to amend
and repeal certain other acts.
* * *
The House resumed from October 28 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-53, an act to establish the Department of
Canadian Heritage and to amend and repeal certain other acts, be
read the second time and referred to a committee; of the
amendment; and of the amendment to the amendment,
(The House divided on the amendment to the amendment,
which was negatived on the following division:)
(Division No. 96)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
Althouse
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Bouchard
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
de Jong
de Savoye
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gilmour
Godin
Grey (Beaver River)
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Manning
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McLaughlin
Mercier
Mills (Red Deer)
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Riis
Robinson
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
7536
Solberg
Solomon
St-Laurent
Stinson
Strahl
Taylor
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams-93
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bellemare
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bélair
Caccia
Calder
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Culbert
DeVillers
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Eggleton
English
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Harb
Harvard
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
MacLellan (Cape/Cap Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peters
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Speller
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Wappel
Wayne
Wood
Young
Zed-131
PAIRED MEMBERS
Members
Asselin
Bernier (Gaspé)
Brien
Deshaies
Discepola
Fillion
Lefebvre
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
Manley
Ouellet
Peterson
Pillitteri
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Walker
(1835)
[Translation]
The Deputy Chairman: I declare the amendment to the
amendment lost.
* * *
[
English]
The House resumed from October 28, consideration of the
motion that Bill C-54, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act,
the Canada Pension Plan, the Children's Special Allowances Act
and the Unemployment Insurance Act, be read the second time
and referred to a committee; and of the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to order made Thursday,
October 27, 1994, the House will now proceed to the taking of
the deferred division on the amendment of Mr. Dumas at second
reading stage of Bill C-54, an act to amend the Old Age Security
Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the Children's Special
Allowances Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Perhaps
you will find consent to apply the vote that we applied on the
main motion of Bill C-56 in reverse to Bill C-54. You may find
that one member may rise to indicate that the NDP members
may want to indicate a variance to that effect and that would
save us the time of taking an additional vote.
(1840)
Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I rise in response to the offer from
the government benches about applying the vote. There would
be consent from this corner of the House on behalf of New
Democrats but we would like our vote registered as an
affirmative, as a yes vote in this case.
The Deputy Speaker: Subject to those interventions is there
unanimous consent to proceed as suggested?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived
on the following division:)
7537
(Division No. 97)
YEAS
Members
Althouse
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Bouchard
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
de Jong
de Savoye
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Marchand
McLaughlin
Mercier
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Riis
Robinson
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Solomon
St-Laurent
Taylor
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bellemare
Benoit
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bélair
Caccia
Calder
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chatters
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Culbert
Cummins
DeVillers
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Eggleton
English
Epp
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier)
Gerrard
Gilmour
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Harvard
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jennings
Johnston
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
MacLellan (Cape/Cap Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manning
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Parrish
Patry
Penson
Peric
Peters
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rock
Rompkey
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Skoke
Solberg
Speller
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Thompson
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Wappel
Wayne
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams
Wood
Young
Zed-172
PAIRED MEMBERS
Members
Asselin
Bernier (Gaspé)
Brien
Deshaies
Discepola
Fillion
Lefebvre
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
Manley
Ouellet
Peterson
Pillitteri
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Walker
_____________________________________________
7537
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
Translation]
The House resumed from October 28, consideration of the
motion that Bill C-210, an act to provide for the recall of
members of the House of Commons, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
7538
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to order made Thursday,
October 27, 1994, the House will proceed to the taking of the
deferred division on the motion of Miss Grey at second reading
of Bill C-210.
The vote will be taken by row, beginning with the member
who moved the motion, followed by those who are in favour of
the motion on the same side as the mover of the motion, one row
at a time. Votes will then be taken from those sitting on the other
side of the House who are in favour of the motion. Those who are
against the motion will be called in the same way.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on
the following division: )
(Division No. 98)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Chatters
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Grey (Beaver River)
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Johnston
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Mills (Red Deer)
Penson
Ramsay
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams-40
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bachand
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bergeron
Bernier (Beauce)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Bouchard
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bélair
Bélisle
Caccia
Calder
Canuel
Caron
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crête
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
de Jong
de Savoye
DeVillers
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Eggleton
English
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harvard
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
MacLellan (Cape/Cap Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Marchand
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
McCormick
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
Mercier
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Murphy
Murray
Ménard
Nault
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Parrish
Paré
Patry
Peric
Peters
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robinson
Rocheleau
Rock
Rompkey
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Solomon
Speller
St-Laurent
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Wappel
Wayne
Wood
Young
Zed-179
PAIRED MEMBERS
Members
Asselin
Bernier (Gaspé)
Brien
Deshaies
Discepola
Fillion
Lefebvre
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
Manley
Ouellet
Peterson
Pillitteri
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Walker
7539
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
(Bill read the second time and referred to committee.)
[English]
Mr. Hanger: Mr. Speaker, I was not here for the vote.
However, had I been here I would have cast my vote in favour of
the motion.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 6.52 p.m. the House will now
proceed to Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order
Paper.
* * *
The House resumed from June 20 consideration of the motion.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is with great pleasure that I rise tonight to speak to the motion
put forward by my hon. colleague from Verchères.
In his motion my colleague recommends that the House
should officially recognize the historical contribution of the
Patriotes of Lower Canada and the Reformers of Upper Canada
to the establishment of a system of responsible, democratic
government in Canada and in Quebec.
Before I start I would like to quote briefly from an article
written by S. W. Wallace, which was published in the first issue
of the Canadian Historical Review:
The real significance of Canadian history lies in the fact that in the evolution
of the new and unprecedented phenomenon, the British Commonwealth of
Nations, Canada has played a leading part. It was in Canada that responsible
government was first worked out in the colonial sphere.
(1855 )
Responsible government is undoubtedly a Canadian concept.
It is part of our rich sociopolitical history. Question period, for
example, is one of the ways in which the government can be
challenged to remain accountable for its actions.
In any event, I am not here tonight to debate who fought
harder for the concept of responsible government in the British
North American colonies, Joseph Howe or the duo of Louis
Joseph Papineau and William Lyon Mackenzie. Each
contributed in his own way to the establishment of responsible
government in Canada.
What I am concerned with is the fact that we are seeking to
recognize a holiday based on a history which focuses on
ordinary citizens taking up arms against the government of the
day. Even if the motion of our colleague from Verchères should
pass the House when would he suggest that the Patriotes and the
Reformers be commemorated? The closest Sunday to November
23, just like the Parti Quebecois declared in 1982?
I am aware that my colleague is not demanding a national
holiday. However, we already set aside two days when
Canadians can pause and reflect on this great country of ours.
These two days are Heritage Day and Canada Day.
On these days Canadians reflect and celebrate their country.
What prevents us from commemorating on the third Monday of
February or on July 1 the contributions of the patriots and the
reformers to the establishment of responsible government?
For example, in Liverpool, Nova Scotia, and all around the
south shore area, the Canada Day weekend is the beginning of a
local heritage celebration called Privateer Day. Privateers were
men who smuggled supplies instead of serving in the Royal
Navy during the American revolution, the Napoleonic wars and
the war of 1812.
During these commemorative festivities fireworks are lit on
Friday night over the Liverpool harbour in memory of the
privateers. On Saturday there are two parades which recreate the
events of days gone by. To my knowledge, the privateers of
Nova Scotia have never been officially recognized by the House
of Commons for their contribution to the economic prosperity of
the south shore of Nova Scotia, yet every year during the Canada
Day weekend the entire community remembers the privateers.
What is preventing our hon. colleague from Verchères from
encouraging community leaders to organize events
commemorating Louis Joseph Papineau and his followers? He
certainly does not need the federal government's approval to
organize such festivities.
My real opposition to this motion stems from the unique place
in history given to the Patriotes by the Quebec sovereignists. I
think it would further fan the flames of nationalism and
separatism if this motion was adopted by the House.
I would like to quote from an article that appeared in L'action
nationale which is without a doubt a propaganda tool for the
Quebecois nationalists. The article was penned by Gilles
Rhéaume who at the time was director of the Ligue d'action
nationale as well as president of the Société
Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Montréal which is one of the most
radical nationalist groups in Quebec. In his short article, Mr.
Rhéaume stated:
[Translation]
``Admiring the Patriotes of 1837-38 is fine, but being
inspired by their example is better. Let us draw our inspiration
from their devotion to freedom and sovereignty. But, in order to
do so, we need special occasions. That is why the Société
Saint-Jean-Baptiste of Montreal welcomed the order issued by
the Quebec government declaring the Sunday nearest to
November 23, the anniversary date of the victory at
Saint-Denis, as National Patriots Day''.
7540
[English]
The Quebec sovereignists use the patriots of 1837-38
rebellion as a weapon of legitimization in their fight for Quebec
independence. The sovereignists of today try to demonstrate to
their fellow Quebecois that Louis Joseph Papineau and his
followers were rebelling against the intransigent tyranny of the
British powers, much like the Bloc is doing in this Parliament
against the federal powers.
Granted, conditions in Lower Canada during the 1830s were
difficult and frustrating for the French Canadian majority,
difficult because economic hardship seriously affected the
francophone working class, frustrating because the francophone
petite bourgeoisie constituted the majority of members in the
lower House. Yet these same members had very little say in the
financial management of the colony.
(1900)
What concerns me if this House adopts Motion No. 257 is that
we will be playing right into the hands of the Bloc Quebecois as
well as those of the Parti Quebecois. Certain parallels can be
drawn between the causes fought for in 1837-38 and the present
day battle over Canadian unity.
Once again, I will draw upon Mr. Rhéaume's comment to
support my argument. Mr. Rhéaume states that economic
conditions, especially the lack of control over the purse strings
of the colonial treasury were one of the main causes for the
1837-38 rebellion. Today Quebec nationalists complain that
they have only partial control over their economy. The essential
levers of power rest within the hands of the federal government
where the Quebec representatives are a minority.
The Patriotes believed that only full control of all economic
levers could permit the French Canadians to survive as a people.
The Quebecois nationalist elite uses the same argument today to
preserve its language, culture and tradition.
I clearly see comparisons being drawn by Quebecois
nationalists between the events of 1837-38 and those unfolding
in 1994-95. If this House is seriously fighting for a strong
Canada it would be hypocritical for its members to vote in
favour of this motion.
Since our colleague for Verchères is very interested in history,
as all Canadians should be, let us look back on some of the
Patriote commemorative ceremonies which have taken place
over the years. Since 1962, the 125th anniversary of the
rebellion, commemorative ceremonies held in Montreal in
honour of the Saint-Denis victory have taken on a nationalistic
overtone. For example in 1970 at the height of the October crisis
about 3,000 people rallied at the Patriotes monument.
Representatives of the Chevaliers de l'indépendance, as well as
those of the FLQ were on hand. Camille Laurin, leader of the
national assembly of the Parti Quebecois, stated:
[Translation]
The most insidious means are used to perpetuate colonialism
in Quebec, but Quebec will achieve its independence through
peaceful means.
[English]
At a similar celebration in 1973 Francois Albert Angers, one
of Quebec's most important proponents of economic
sovereignty, asked French Canadians to stand behind the Parti
Quebecois so that they could defeat more easily the anglophone
political party. Links do exist between Quebec sovereignists and
Patriotes commemoration.
In 1977 the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Montréal awarded
its Patriote de l'année award to Camille Laurin, the minister
who steered Bill 101 through the national assembly. This is no
coincidence. The nationalists use the term Patriote de l'année
when giving an award to a Parti Quebecois minister who
severely restricted, we could almost say outlawed, the use of
English in his province. The Parti Quebecois during its last
tenure in power also renamed a highway in honour of the
Patriotes in addition to declaring the Sunday nearest November
23 as the official day for commemorative ceremonies.
The Parti Quebecois is using the battles of their forefathers
during the 1837-38 rebellion to legitimize their struggles
against Canadian federalism. Today the term patriote has taken
on an almost anti-English anti-federalist connotation in
Quebec. Whereas the original Patriotes fought in part to
establish responsible government, today's patriots seem to be
working toward the demise of this great country of ours.
Louis Joseph Papineau, William Lyon Mackenzie and their
followers certainly have enriched Canada's history as have
thousands of other men and women. In opposing this motion I do
not want to belittle their contribution in any way. However, I am
concerned for the message we would be sending out to the
Quebecois sovereignists if we legitimized the Patriotes' actions.
I therefore urge all members of this House who want to preserve
our country to vote against Motion No. 257.
[Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise
on a point of order. The hon. member who just spoke has insulted
many Quebecers, unwittingly I am sure, by saying that the
Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste is a radical or extremist movement.
Several million of Quebecers have been members of that
movement which has no ties whatsoever with political parties. I
shall be brief, Mr. Speaker. Some Liberals are still members of
the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste, and other parties-
7541
(1905)
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member knows that this is a
question for debate and not a point of order. They will get a
chance to speak, but it is now the turn of their colleague-
Mr. Plamondon: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I
insist.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member for
Blainville-Deux-Montagnes want to yield to his colleague?
Mr. Mercier: No, Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Richelieu on the
same point of order.
Mr. Plamondon: I ask that the words radical and extremist
applied to the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste be withdrawn
because they are unparliamentary.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for
Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, on debate.
Mr. Mercier: Mr. Speaker, I am willing to speak now, but I
think that it was not the order in which it was agreed to do so.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Trois-Rivières
has the floor.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
am very pleased to speak today in this debate about the
contribution of the Patriotes of Lower Canada and the
Reformers of Upper Canada to the democratic evolution of our
representation mechanisms.
I am all the more pleased to speak on this November 1, 1994,
because exactly seven years ago today, on November 1, 1987,
we lost a very great Quebec patriot, a great Quebec democrat,
the former premier of Quebec, Mr. Lévesque, who invited
Quebecers to believe in Quebec, who gave confidence and pride
to Quebecers and invited them to describe themselves and to
consider themselves as a people with the highest political status.
I would hope that in the upcoming referendum campaign,
Quebecers will remember and emulate that great man, René
Lévesque.
I am also very pleased to take part in this debate that was
raised by my colleague from Verchères, whom I want to
congratulate and who has moved the following motion, that I
would like to read in order to put things in perspective:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should officially
recognize the historical contribution of the Patriotes of Lower Canada and the
Reformers of Upper Canada to the establishment of a system of responsible
democratic government in Canada and in Quebec, as did the Government of
Quebec in 1982 by proclaiming by order a national Patriots' Day.
I am all the more proud, and even a bit moved, because I
participated myself in the celebrations that, for thirty years now,
have been held in commemoration of the 1837-1838 events that
occurred in Saint-Denis sur Richelieu, in Quebec. I would like
to take this opportunity to thank and congratulate two residents
of that village who, certainly for twelve years I think, have
organized these celebrations with efficiency, skill, modesty and
so much dignity. They are Mr. and Mrs. Onil Perrier from
Saint-Denis and they deserve our most sincere gratitude.
To understand fully the evolution of these so-called
democratic mechanisms, we have to go back to 1791, about forty
years before the 1837-1838 events, when the Quebec Act
created two provinces, Lower Canada and Upper Canada,
Quebec and Ontario as we know them today.
From a political point of view, we must remember that this act
established four precise levels of power which were the source
of frictions that caused the events we all know about. The first
level of power was the governor and his bureaucrats who formed
an oligarchy named clique du château, or castle clan, in Quebec
and Family Compact in Upper Canada or Ontario. Then there
were the Executive Council and two other houses, the
Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly.
(1910)
Not only were the governor and the executive council not
accountable to the people and the elected representatives, but
they also had the power to revoke laws passed by Parliament.
The legislative council was clearly a patronage heaven and
became a kind of branch of the executive council where people
would exchange friendly services, serve on one council and then
on the other and even, at times, on both councils at once.
During all those years, there was deep discontent with the
legislative council within the population. When the 92
resolutions were presented in 1834, 31 concerned the
Legislative Council, and this discontent was prevalent among
both francophones and anglophone progressive democrats.
At the time, the legislative assembly, consisting of elected
representatives and members, was just a debating society, like
the National Forum on Health which the Prime Minister of
Canada supports, a debating society without any real power,
except the power to run its own activities, but when it appointed
a speaker, Louis Joseph Papineau, his appointment was turned
down by Mr. Dalhousie, the governor at the time.
Throughout this period, the demands of both Patriotes and
Reformers touched on a number of points, the most important
one being responsible government, which would make the
executive accountable to the people and their elected
representatives.
Another demand concerned the right of the members of the
Legislative Assembly to control appropriations and how tax
money was spent, and to have a say in the appointment of senior
officials. Finally, another demand, still very relevant, was that
the legislative council, more or less the equivalent of the other
7542
place today, be elected by the people instead of appointed by the
governor.
Throughout this period, these demands were the subject of
intense and incessant debate and caused constant confrontation
between the executive and the legislative bodies. Faced with the
arbitrary behaviour and contempt of the governor and his clique,
the people's representatives and all democratic individuals had
the choice of either submitting or enlisting the means at their
disposal and stand on their rights.
That is what they did, but unfortunately, in 1837-38, both
groups were defeated. They were defeated in the media, but only
ten years later, in 1848, they won when responsible government
was recognized. We still enjoy the benefits of that victory today
in this House, and it means that as elected representatives, we
can take part in the debate and we can ask questions.
You will probably agree that the quality of the questions is
more obvious than the quality of the answers, especially when
the answers come from the official opposition, but it gives us the
right today to put questions to the government. It gives us the
right to demand, on occasion, the resignation of ministers. That
is part of these new powers. At the time, these powers were
acquired as a result of responsible government. This gives
elected representatives the right to adopt budgets and
appropriations, and it also allows them to question the
government about the appointment of senior officials.
Such is the contribution of the Patriotes and the Reformers.
That is why we are asking the House to vote on this proposal to
recognize the most valuable contribution that both Patriotes and
Reformers made at that time to the evolution of our democracy. I
will not try to conceal that there are in fact similarities between
the background of this historic episode and the present situation.
(1915)
We must not forget that at the time, as my friend mentioned a
few moments ago, they were claiming their independence and
there had been a declaration of independence. Today, the
sovereignist movement is in office in Quebec and represents the
official opposition here, in Ottawa. This shows how sovereignist
thinking is deeply rooted in our people, how we genuinely aspire
to sovereignty and how the vision of someday having a country
that Quebecers will claim as their own is not the undertaking of a
single man, but a truly collective endeavour very deeply rooted
in the minds of our people.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to take part today to the debate on the
motion which reads as follows:
That [. . .]the government should officially recognize the historical
contribution of the Patriotes of Lower Canada and the Reformers of Upper
Canada to the establishment of a system of responsible democratic government in
Canada and in Quebec-
I will come back to that proposal later.
Let me say first of all that I am among those who will not be
able to support that motion. However, I want to say that I share
in no way, and I underline the words in no way, the arguments
and reasons put forward by the member for Calgary Southeast
against the motion. Her reasons are not mine and I thought it was
important to stress this fact.
It is with great interest that I rise today to speak about that
important issue. Most Canadians do not have to go back to their
history books to remember the contribution of Reformers and
Patriotes during the last century. As we all know, the Patriotes
caused the events known today as the Rebellion of 1837.
Although I recognize it is important to stress the contribution
of those individuals who, by their action, brought about the
establishment of responsible government, I do not subscribe
fully to the proposal of the hon. member. If the aim of the hon.
member for Verchères is to commemorate important
contributions to Canadian democracy, I believe his proposal is
somewhat restrictive.
First of all, Canada is a huge territory bordered by three
oceans. This alone is sufficient to make us understand that a
multitude of individuals must have worked together to build this
great country. The motion of the hon. member stresses only the
historical contribution of the Patriotes of Lower Canada and of
the Reformers of Upper Canada. Notwithstanding that fact, if
the motion had been put differently, I could have given it my
support. However, I oppose the motion because it does not take
into account the fundamental contributions of Canadians in
other regions.
Montesquieu said that to love democracy is to love equality. If
we recognize the contribution of some, this should be done
equally for all.
It would be important to highlight or, at least, not to forget the
role played by Joseph Howe to whom we originally owe the
principle of accountability in government. I am not saying this
to gloss over or down-play what William Lyon Mackenzie did in
Upper Canada and Louis Joseph Papineau in Lower Canada, but
this does not change the fact that Joseph Howe was the
originator of the concept of accountability in government. He
was a journalist with the Nova Scotian, an influential paper at
the time. He had campaigned in favour of accountability in
government. When he entered politics, in 1836, he played an
important role in the establishment, in Nova Scotia, of what was
called a liberal reform government. He was the one who argued
with the
7543
British authorities of the day in favour of an executive power
accountable to the elected members of the legislative assembly.
(1920)
It was the beginning of responsible government. As the
member who spoke before me mentioned, Louis Joseph
Papineau and his committee had presented 92 resolutions
advocating the control of revenues by the legislative assembly,
but executive responsibility, the election of a council and their
action were part of a larger movement which was related to a
fight being fought elsewhere by Joseph Howe, in Nova Scotia,
for example, or by William Lyon Mackenzie in Upper Canada.
What we must point out when we talk about the history of
Lower and Upper Canada, is that the provinces were created by
the Constitutional Act of 1791 which drew a line west of the
seigneury of Vaudreuil to create the new province of Upper
Canada, a sort of distinct society for the English speakers of the
time, a way to give them the common law and the right to own
land under a system known as ``free hold land tenure''.
A distinct colony was establish to protect these two
principles. However, I should say that this new colony of Upper
Canada was merely a narrow band of land just north of the St.
Lawrence River, just like Lower Canada extended only along
both shores of the river.
Nevertheless, if we were to take the motion as it appears in
today's order paper and to translate its content in 1994 parlance,
we would talk about the responsible democratic government of
Quebec, the former Lower Canada, and of Ontario, the former
Upper Canada, and we would exclude all the other provinces of
this big country of ours. As I said earlier, the initiatives of
Joseph Howe preceded those of William Lyon Mackenzie who,
with a group of friends, rebelled and took arms-a few guns,
forks, shovels, whatever they had then-to show their
discontent.
Needless to say, they did not get very far. They were for the
most part banished, jailed, etc. and they only surfaced years
later. As for Lower Canada, we certainly all remember Louis
Joseph Papineau and his friends, who were then called the
Patriotes, and who played a role similar to that of William Lyon
Mackenzie, the grandfather of another Liberal Prime Minister
elected several years later, William Lyon Mackenzie King.
We are all aware of these facts and I am not one to forget or
diminish in any way the role played by the Patriotes. In closing,
I will repeat what I said at the beginning, that I totally dissociate
myself from some comments made today. I declare that, if this
motion was intended to recognize in Ontario and in Quebec,
which are both provinces, the contribution of these groups, I
would gladly support the motion, and I must say that if the
member opposite was willing to request unanimous consent of
the House to change the word, I would immediately give my
support.
I suspect, however, that there is another, different objective in
that motion. At the end, it says ``in Canada and in Quebec'', as if
they were really two distinct and equal entities.
(1925)
Of course, Ontario and Quebec are both provinces. Quebec is
a province within this great country which is Canada, this great
country which, I hope, will always remain strong and united.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today in this House to speak to the proposal put forth by my
colleague, the hon. member for Verchères. The motion reads as
follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should officially
recognize the historical contribution of the Patriotes of Lower Canada and the
Reformers of Upper Canada to the establishment of a system of responsible
democratic government in Canada and in Quebec, as did the government of
Quebec in 1982 by proclaiming by order a national Patriots' day.
I want to point out right away that this proposal is in no way
designed to add a statutory holiday to the calendar. The thought
of adding such a holiday never crossed the mind of the sponsor
of this motion.
The purpose of this motion is however to recognize the
contribution of the Patriotes of Lower Canada and the
Reformers of Upper Canada by an order of this House to that
effect.
The point was made that the violence of the 1837 and 1838
rebellions should not be condoned. Of course not, but let us not
forget however that Patriotes and Reformers voiced their
grievances and complaints in pamphlets, in newspapers articles,
at rallies, through petitions and presentations at the House of
Assembly they had in those days, before some of them finally
decided to rise up in arms.
The sole purpose of the motion before us now is to pay tribute,
regardless of these unfortunately violent events, to these men
and women who believed in the need to have a responsible and
truly democratic government. Among those who took part in
that movement, some became well-respected public figures
because of their convictions and their major contribution to our
society.
I can think of people like Louis Joseph Papineau, Louis
Hippolyte Lafontaine, Robert Baldwin or George Étienne
Cartier. Of course, the Patriotes and the Reformers were not the
only ones who contributed to the establishment of responsible
government in this country. Others also made a historical
contribution to the building of Canada. I imagine that some
measure will eventually be proposed to also honour these
people.
Certain Patriotes are better known than others, as well as
some places. I am honoured by the fact that a meeting of
Patriotes took place on July 16, 1837, in Deschambault, in my
riding of Portneuf.
7544
Deschambault is one of many small communities in my riding
which are located right on the shore of the St. Lawrence River. It
has a pier, a promontory called Cap Lauzon, as well as a church
which was already there at the time. There is also a general
store, the Magasin général Paré, which dates back to that period.
Let us go back 157 years, to July 16, 1837, in front of the
general store which is located next to the old church, and let us
listen to what the Patriotes of the time were saying:
Resolution No. 1. ``That this assembly solemnly condemns
the resolutions concerning the affairs of this province which
were recently introduced by the minister in the British
Parliament, which overwhelmingly approved them, hence
sanctioning a principle which sooner or later will be used as a
precedent to attack and destroy not only the rights and liberties
of other British colonies, but even those of the English people''.
(1930)
There are in these historical statements some valuable lessons
that might enlighten us about our current situation.
Resolution No. 2 is as follows: ``That the resolutions
introduced by Lord John Russell in the House of Commons in
England on March 6, on behalf of all ministers, to authorize the
Imperial Parliament to seize in the provincial coffers the monies
from the labour of the people to pay public servants, most of
whom have shown themselves unworthy of this country, and
since passed by the Commons and the Lords, are a violation of
the Constitutional rights and privileges of the people of this
province''.
Resolution No. 3: ``That the adoption of these resolutions is in
complete defiance of the just demands of the inhabitants of this
province; that it destroys our confidence in the British
Parliament, and that it should convince French Canadians that,
in the future, they should expect from the United Kingdom no
reparation for their grievances and no respect for their political
rights.'' Unfortunately, you will agree, there is nothing new
under the sun.
Resolution No. 4: ``That the people of this country would bear
the mark of degradation and would be enslaved if they agreed to
be taxed, to be violently deprived by the public authorities of
their money, which would then be distributed to perverse
servants, without the sanction of their representatives who are
the only ones to have the right to make appropriation of it''. In
those days, there was no deficit, no public debt. Still, very
serious statements were already being made. What would these
Patriotes of 157 years ago say today if they saw our current
taxation levels and our use of public funds? Then, 157 years ago,
people had good horse sense and I think we still have it today.
Resolution No. 5: ``That the British Parliament, by passing a
resolution to seize this province's revenues, was guilty of an
outrageous violation of our most accepted rights, that it is our
people's most pressing duty to resist this violation with all the
legal means-that is what was said-at our disposal, and that we
should henceforth have the steadfastness to appeal no more to a
body which has declared itself so resolutely hostile to our
freedoms''.
Resolution No. 6: ``That for the preservation of these
freedoms, it would be prudent to prepare ourselves for the
difficulties that we may encounter by limiting our personal
expenses and by promoting education, agriculture, industry,
manufacturing and trade in this province.'' This certainly
sounds very contemporary.
Resolution No. 7: ``That when the revenues of this province
are squandered to satisfy the greed of those who are always
opposed to the wishes and the needs of the people, it is our duty
to improve our domestic manufactures and to recommend their
increasing use to our fellow citizens, just as it is our duty to
avoid in so far as possible the products of those who pay duties''.
Quebec's Patriotes were already showing us the way 157
years ago. There are many more resolutions, but it was a
privilege for me to read in this House tonight these words so full
of common sense that our ancestors wrote in difficult times and
that can still guide us today.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention that the words
I read tonight were written by Mr. Louis Gariépy, president, and
Mr. N.G. Gauthier, secretary, and were published in La Minerve,
on July 24, 1837.
(1935 )
[English]
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Motion No. 257, the purpose
of which is to recognize the historic contributions made by the
Patriotes of Lower Canada and the Reformers of Upper Canada
to establish a system of responsible democratic government in
Canada.
I should like to begin by informing my hon. colleague from
Verchères that the Government of Canada is by no means remiss
in celebrating our historic heritage and encouraging all
Canadians to do so. The government has already established a
national day of celebration on which we mark the contribution
made to the country by all Canadian patriots, be they
anglophone, francophone, aboriginal or allophone. I am
speaking of course of Canada Day.
Canada Day is a unique and appropriate opportunity to
celebrate the contributions of all Canadians, including those
who work for the establishment and continued evolution of our
democratic system of government.
Thousands of Canadians also have the opportunity to
celebrate Heritage Day in February and organize activities
marking the richness and diversity of our common heritage. It is
the
7545
perfect opportunity to commemorate the contribution that all
great Canadians have made to our history.
Permit me to mention that heritage is a vast concept that
includes, as George Kapelos wrote, the understanding,
appreciation and preservation of significant elements of our
culture and historic heritage. It goes without saying that one of
those significant elements is the important role played by the
Patriotes and the Reformers of 1837.
It must also be said that the federal government's more
traditional role in heritage matters has been to protect national,
historic or architectural sites and to establish research programs
to increase awareness of our past.
Yet there is ongoing co-operation among the federal,
provincial and territorial governments in numerous areas of
heritage preservation and appreciation. That is why as an
Ontarian and as a Canadian I am pleased to see the Government
of Quebec has officially marked the contribution that the
Patriotes made to the establishment of more democratic
structures by instituting the journée des Patriotes celebrated in
November of each year.
It is certainly not my intention to discourage the groups of
citizens in Quebec and Ontario that are working to ensure the
Patriotes and the Reformers are given their rightful place in our
collective history. Indeed a familiarity with Canada's history
gives us a more balanced vision of the country that allows us to
make well advised decisions in managing the present and
preparing for the future.
The reason I oppose the adoption of such a bill is that the
proposal by the member for Verchères puts the emphasis on the
role of only certain individuals in the process that led to the
establishment of responsible government. I do not agree with
the thinking that the Government of Canada should give all the
credit for the progress of democracy in Canada to the Patriotes
of the rebellion of 1837. This would be unacceptable given that
it would ignore the contributions of thousands of Canadians in
every region of the country who played an integral role in
establishing a more genuine democracy in Canada.
I must therefore point out, as did my colleague from
Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle a few months ago, that the
proposal by the member for Verchères does not take into account
the contribution that a great number of Canadians made to the
institution of responsible government in Canada. I am speaking
of Joseph Howe, Nellie McClung, Thérèse Casgrain and many
others who over the course of our history were involved in the
process of establishing responsible government and in the
ongoing evolution of our democratic system of government.
Recalling Joseph Howe, I cannot but question the link that
this proposal tries to make between the actions of the Patriotes
and the Reformers in the last century and the institution of
responsible government. Was it not in fact Lord Durham who in
a the rebellion of 1837 first recommended responsible
government and the union of the two Canadas? I will be told that
Lord Durham's intention was to assimilate the French
Canadians and that is undeniable.
(1940 )
I would point out, however, that it was the moderate
Reformers who deserve the credit for putting forward the idea of
responsible government. That is why Joseph Howe of Nova
Scotia played such a pivotal role. He was the first to establish
responsible government overseas in the British Empire, in one
of the colonies that was to become Canada, at a time when the
Patriot Louis Joseph Papineau was advocating American style
elections.
Joseph Howe, Robert Baldwin and Louis Lafontaine then
built solid, moderate parties which in 1848 led Great Britain to
accept the institution of a fully functional, responsible
government. I would also point out that although responsible
government did represent progress in Canada's parliamentary
system, it was not in the beginning fully democratic.
It would take contributions of such great women as Nellie
McClung and Thérèse Casgrain to win the right for women to
vote that they were denied until the 20th century. Thus it was
Nellie McClung who deserves the credit for Manitoba becoming
the first Canadian province to give women the right to vote in
1916. Quebec had to wait for Thérèse Casgrain before it
recognized women's right to vote in provincial elections.
Furthermore it was not until 1960 that status Indians were
allowed to vote in federal elections.
If Canada were to mark the contribution its citizens have
made to the institution of genuine responsible government, it
would do so by including all Canadians rather than singling out
the Patriotes. I find it difficult to see how Canadians as a whole
would welcome the idea of granting national recognition to only
one of the elements that contributed to an immense collection of
movement leading to the creation of real democracy.
I find it difficult to see how women would once again endorse
a version of history that denies them their rightful place. I found
it difficult to see how Canadians in provinces other than Ontario
and Quebec would accept the government's decision to
celebrate the contribution of only certain patriots. I find it
difficult to see how the First Nations would welcome such a
denial of their role in the creation of Canadian democracy.
In as much as adoption of the bill might incur additional
expenses, I feel it must not proceed. The Canadian government
is a responsible government because of the historical events that
created it. As a result it has priorities to which it must devote all
its efforts and its human and financial resources.
7546
We promised Canadians jobs. In other words bread, not smoke
and mirrors. Having said this, I would not want people to
misinterpret the importance I attach to the action of our national
patriots. I recognize that Papineau and Mackenzie played a
significant role in our country's development by precipitating
events with their radical position, but I also recognize that
Baldwin and Lafontaine together contributed to the progress of
democracy with their more moderate position.
That is the great lesson that Canada teaches us. There are
sometimes contradictory individual interests and positions.
Then transcending everything else there is a peaceful Canada
which forms and transforms itself without armed conflict.
I for one am proud to live in a country that adopted
responsible government, making the pitchforks and rifles of the
past unnecessary. I therefore encourage all Canadians to
celebrate in their own way the tradition of democracy they have
inherited. As they have shown so often in the past, Canadians do
not lack inventiveness.
They can if they wish organize historical re-enactments of the
events on the road to responsible government. They can, with
the help of local historical societies or heritage conservation
groups, organize commemorative or celebratory events. In
closing I hope that my comments on opposing this motion have
not in any way diminished the events of our history that allow us
to speak here.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the motion of my colleague from Verchères is of
particular interest for me because many events of the 1837
Rebellion occurred in my riding, in the town of Saint-Eustache,
which became historic, and in neighbouring villages.
(1945)
It is impossible to visit this region without seeing traces of
these events mile after mile. Some of the villages and localities
have evocative and significant names. One village was razed
and others were burned to a greater of lesser extent. The English
burned these villages in reprisal.
The facade of the main church in Saint-Eustache still bears
the marks made by English cannonballs. Many streets in the
town are named after participants in these events. The
Jean-Olivier Chénier Local Community Service Centre recalls
the leader of the Patriotes in this region. These are all visible
remnants of the 1837 Rebellion which brought the Patriotes face
to face with the British army. We who live in that region cannot
forget those events even if we wanted to. The signs are there
right before us.
Before anything else, I have to dispel a myth which has to do
with the confrontation that did not occur because the Patriotes
wanted sovereignty. The motion does not mention only the
Patriotes of Lower Canada but also the Reformers of Upper
Canada. Let me quote my colleague, the hon. member for
Verchères, who presented this motion. He said on June 20, 1994:
``The aim of the motion I have just respectfully submitted for
the consideration of this House today is to rectify this perception
[that they were criminals] and to achieve, at long last,
recognition of the historic contribution of the Patriotes of Lower
Canada and the Reformers of Upper Canada to the establishment
of a truly responsible and truly democratic government in
Canada and in Quebec''.
At the time, the Patriotes and the Reformers were fighting for
a cause that is still dear to our hearts, quite simply democracy.
Therefore, whether they were from Upper or Lower Canada,
the insurrectionists were fighting to have the colonial assembly,
which represented in the people, take a more active part in the
exercise of power and gradually take over the internal
management of the colony. As we know, the management of the
colony's affairs was, at the time, conducted by London, through
the governor and councils.
In short, what the insurrectionists wanted, and the reason why
I think the whole country has the duty to recognize them, was,
and I repeat, the democratization of the institutions of their
country.
Whether it was in the field or at the end of a rope, will we say
that the sacrifice of those who lost their lives was in vain? No,
because in spite of their defeat, their uprising had the result of
drawing the attention of London to the people's aspirations that
it had consistently ignored until then. It was as a result of the
1837-38 events that London asked Lord Durham to conduct an
inquiry and to propose some solutions to the problems raised by
these aspirations from colonies in the north of the United States
of America.
(1950)
The Durham report, which was of course open to criticism in
many respects, particularly for us, Quebecers, nevertheless
proved the Reformers and the Patriotes right, in the sense that
the report ridiculed and criticized the Constitution Act of 1791,
which, while giving a representative government, did not accept
the principle of responsible government. That was exactly what
the insurrectionists had been demanding and, on that point, Lord
Durham was in agreement with them.
It would be an overstatement to say that, in and of themselves,
the actions of the Patriotes and the Reformers resulted in the
Durham mission, the awareness that this mission raised in
London and, consequently, the recognition in 1848 of
responsible government. It would be unfair to others who helped
make our institutions more democratic. The fact remains,
however, that this action led to the decision to send Lord
Durham on his mission and that the conclusions of this mission
strongly influenced London's decision in 1848.
7547
I repeat, the Patriotes and the Reformers were not the sole
instigators of the movement towards democracy that started in
1848, but it is important to recognize the part they played, and I
will get back to this. We want to give everyone his due.
The causes that in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries
moved first the Americans, then the French and then the
Canadians to rebel violently against authority must be seen in
context, and the context was, of course, different for each group.
However, the main theme was the same: the will of a mature
people to manage its own affairs. This phenomenon was to
spread to a number of western countries.
Without going so far as to defend violence, we cannot afford
to ignore, for the sake of being politically correct, the important
and in some cases unique role played by popular uprisings in the
history of democracy.
In Canada as well, history has shown that acts of violence
occur only as a last resort, when people try to make themselves
heard and all peaceful methods have failed. Perhaps I may recall
what was said by the hon. member for Portneuf and emphasize
the respectful tone of the resolutions he read to us and the fact
that they included the desire to achieve their purpose through
legal means. It is only when they realized that legal means were
ineffective that they resolved to take arms.
All attempts had failed. There were speeches in the House,
demonstrations in the streets, editorials in the newspapers. The
Patriotes and the Reformers finally decided to resort to armed
rebellion because they had failed to obtain that London limit the
discretionary powers of the Governor.
In Canada as everywhere else, violent action, even when
defeated, usually brings some movement, even on the part of a
previously inflexible government.
It is in this light that the motion seeks recognition of the
historic contribution of the rebels of 1837-38, who fought for
the democratization of the institutions of the time.
(1955)
We should not be surprised by the fact that it took so long to
realize the significance of the events of 1837-38. By the way, we
should remember that the Church took 130 or 140 years before
allowing-
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry. If there is unanimous
consent, the member can go on, but his time has expired. One
minute.
Mr. Mercier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out, just for
the sake of comparison, that although the Bastille was taken on
July 14, 1789, it was only 100 years later that the storming of the
Bastille became France's national day. The Bastille was taken
by Parisians, but, to go back to what my colleague opposite
mentioned earlier, in spite of the fact that this was the doing of
Parisians alone, the whole country now commemorates this
local event as its national day. This example illustrates why we
are asking that these events be recognized.
No matter what the members of this House think of the future
of Canada, it seems legitimate for us to look at our past with
respect and emotion, to honour this handful of men who, more
than a century and a half ago, helped shape our democratic
institutions, and sometimes paid for it with their lives.
The Deputy Speaker: The hour provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
[English]
Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the order is dropped to the
bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
7547
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, recently I asked a question of the government, in
particular the Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific, concerning
the upcoming visit of the Prime Minister and Team Canada,
together with nine provincial premiers on a trade delegation to
Asia. In particular I focused on the issue of human rights and
democracy in Asian countries being visited by the Prime
Minister and by the premiers.
In urging the Prime Minister to speak out forcefully with
respect to human rights and democracy in China, Tibet,
Indonesia and East Timor in particular I want to remind the
Prime Minister of his own words in a letter written in December
1991: ``Progress toward respecting human rights in much of the
world is the direct result of pressure from western
democracies''.
I think it is rather ironic that the Secretary of State for
Asia-Pacific was one of the very eloquent spokespeople for the
pro-democracy movement in Canada, calling for democracy
and human rights in China. He had a number of confrontations
with that government and was one of the key organizers of a
human rights delegation in which I had the honour of
participating together with two other members of Parliament,
including his colleague, the Liberal member for Nepean.
The plea I would make today, reiterating a plea I made earlier,
is for the Prime Minister, for the Secretary of State for
Asia-Pacific, for the Minister of Foreign Affairs to recognize
that the concerns which drove that plea for human rights in 1991
which
7548
motivated the Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific in subsequent
years and before then are alive and well today.
With respect to the situation in China it was on June 4 of this
year that Premier Li Peng, on the 5th anniversary of the killings
in Tiananmen Square, chose to implement harsh new regulations
clamping down even further with respect to human rights.
There has been a crackdown on labour dissidents. The
situation in Tibet is very serious. We know for example that
China has recently banned the display of pictures of the Dalai
Lama, continued its nuclear testing, continued its arms sales to
repressive regimes and, most seriously, continued its inhumane
policy of population transfer. There continues to be brutal
repression of Buddhist nuns and monks in Tibet.
(2000)
With respect to the issue in East Timor, the human rights
abuses there are also very serious. I would urge the government
to call for an end to government funding for promotion of trade
with Indonesia, to support the international arms embargo, to
call for the release of Xanana Gusmao and all East Timorese
political prisoners, to support self-determination for East Timor
as the Prime Minister did in his letter of December 1991.
In closing I hope as well that the government will reiterate our
concern to the Chinese government about the importance of
democracy, freedom of expression and the rule of law for Hong
Kong as well, as the transition on July 1, 1997 is coming up in
the very near future.
There will be a large banquet in Beijing in the near future. I
hope that our government will recognize that in addition to
promoting trade we must speak out forcefully for human rights
and democracy. We must call for the immediate release of Wei
Jingsheng. Certainly we must do everything we can to promote
those values of human rights and democracy that are so
important and so profound both in Canada and in Asia.
Hon. Raymond Chan (Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the respect for human rights in China
remains an important objective of our bilateral and multilateral
agenda. Bilaterally we capitalize on every opportunity to remind
the Chinese government at high levels of our concerns. We are
pursuing the development of a serious dialogue about these
concerns through diplomatic channels.
We will continue to pursue human rights issues in multilateral
organizations, including a dialogue on these concerns with
Chinese representatives. At the Commission on Human Rights
in Geneva, which took place from January to March of this year,
Canada co-sponsored a draft resolution on human rights in
China.
The resolution expressed concern over continuing reports of
violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including
torture, severe restrictions on the rights of freedom of
expression, religion, assembly, association and to a fair trial. It
called on China to take further measures to ensure the full
observance of all human rights, including the rights of women.
Also, we have to recognize that there are fundamental
elements that need to be strengthened in China for it to develop
into an open, modern state that respects human rights. Therefore
at a time when China is going through an extensive
liberalization period, we support innovative means to bring
about change to the Chinese system.
We will accomplish this goal by supporting activities in areas
where we believe China is susceptible to influence. We will be
undertaking a number of new co-operative projects to assist the
People's Republic of China in its efforts to reform its legal and
judicial structure, and in its efforts to build up its human
resource development sector.
Trade, economic development and human rights are mutually
reinforcing. A China open to the world can only be good for its
people, both economically and politically, and will further the
cause of respect for human rights.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I recently
asked the revenue minister in this House two questions
concerning the new regulations on the collection of import
duties and taxes that will come into effect on January 16, 1995.
In a document signed by the Deputy Minister of Revenue
Canada, Customs, Excise and Taxation, after a long preamble
trying to justify the measure and make importers feel safer, the
department unilaterally decides to increase the bond required of
importers to 100 per cent of their monthly instalments, up to a
maximum of $10 million. The reason behind this change is the
losses sustained by the government because customs brokers or
importers were no longer able to pay their instalments.
(2005)
For now, but for a short time only, the requirement is 35 per
cent of the first $200,000 and 17.5 per cent of the next $1.8
million, up to a maximum bond of $2 million.
This bond can take the form of cash, Treasury bills, a letter of
endorsement from a bank or a bond issued by the government.
Under the Customs Act, the importer is ultimately responsible
for paying the duties and taxes. In Canada, these duties and taxes
amount to about $11.5 billion a year, most of which is collected
by customs brokers at no cost to the government.
A manufacturer who wants to import a given quantity of
materials or products can import them himself. Use of a customs
broker is optional, not required.
7549
In the Canadian importers' magazine for October 5, they raise
real objections to the increase in security demanded. This
increase would force them to freeze assets, most of which are
used to secure their working capital.
The conclusion of the industry committee's report on
financing small business is that the lack of financing for small
business is the fault of everyone except the government. It
makes no sense.
Furthermore, I learned today that some very big importers
like GM, Chrysler and Honda strongly refuse to provide such
security and that they are negotiating with the Department of
National Revenue to obtain a review of this policy. They are
negotiating with the big ones, but crushing the little guys.
Is an importer or a very large customs broker with remittances
of $250 million a month, who secures only $10 million of that,
not favoured by this measure compared to a very small broker
who must secure 100 per cent of his monthly remittances? Is
favoritism not being shown, at the expense of the smaller
operators? The government says that it is ready to encourage
small business, but when the time comes to keep its word, it
backs down.
I would like to have an explanation of this.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the department has experienced a
significant number of defaults by customs brokers in the past
two years where security was inadequate to cover the defaults.
Therefore, to protect the Crown and importers a security
increase was deemed essential.
[English]
Importers remain fully liable for payment of duties and taxes
under the Customs Act regardless of any arrangement with the
customs broker to act on their behalf. In the case of defaults by
customs brokers, importers who have already delivered
payment of their duties and taxes to the customs brokers are
required to pay the unsecured portion of the total amount a
second time directly to the department.
On the basis of consultations, it was decided that the new
security level would be equal to 100 per cent of the average
monthly K84 invoice up to a maximum of $10 million.
The $10 million ceiling applies regardless of whether the
security is posted by importers or by customs brokers on behalf
of its clients.
The ceiling was established because the surety industry
advised that there is not sufficient security available in Canada
to guarantee the total liability that the brokerage community
carries in any given month.
[Translation]
History has shown that most of the difficulties have arisen
from the small to medium sized brokers whereas larger brokers
have not shown any evidence of being a risk. Therefore, it is
essential that the higher risk group be covered to 100 per cent.
I should also mention that the Canadian Society of Customs
Brokers has negotiated a master bond with a surety company
which will be available to its members. This should greatly
facilitate companies being able to acquire the necessary
security.
The surety company underwriting the Canadian Society of
Customs Brokers' master bond has indicated that, under the new
security regime, it will cover the 80 companies which they
currently secure.
(2010)
[English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I recently asked the Prime Minister a question
concerning ethics and the role of his private ethics counsellor.
His answer was both evasive and unsatisfactory. His answer and
his attitude to the whole integrity and accountability issue
contravene what was said in the Liberal red book.
The government seems to have a very selective memory when
it concerns the contents of its red book and its election promises.
If the government's promises happen to coincide with what it is
doing today, then government members quote from it. If they
have changed their minds or if the promises are inconvenient,
then the government forgets what it said one year ago.
Let me refresh their memories about what they said about
integrity and ethics. On page 92 of the red document, it says:
``Open government will be the watchword of the Liberal
program''. Why then are they so secretive about the actions,
responsibilities and activities of the ethics counsellor? Page 95
of the red book continues: ``A Liberal government will appoint
an independent ethics counsellor. The ethics counsellor will be
appointed after consultation with the leaders of all parties in the
House of Commons and will report directly to Parliament''.
The Prime Minister has tried to make a virtue of the fact that
the ethics counsellor reports directly to him and not to
Parliament. He has said repeatedly that the counsellor's role is
to be the private advisor to the Prime Minister. This represents a
clear break of a very specific election promise. This should not
be the action of a government that is trying to restore integrity
and reassure cynical Canadians.
If the ethics counsellor is not made accountable to the House
of Commons, then he is nothing more than a lapdog and a
government yes man. It is clear that the role of Mr. Wilson is not
to ensure any sort of ethical standard for the government. It is
7550
obvious to all Canadians that the position of an ethics
counsellor was created to give the impression of ethics to the
public. This is old style politics and it is a shameful facade.
Canadians are asking: What about integrity and ethics? The
government's answer is to point to the ethics counsellor who it
keeps locked away in a box until needed in the hopes that this
will fool the public. A more appropriate title for Mr. Wilson
would be the government's ethics spin doctor.
Throughout this whole affair concerning the inappropriate
actions of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the Prime Minister
has been evasive and inconstant. Parliament is still unaware of
when the ethics counsellor was contacted, by whom, what his
advice was and whether or not it was followed.
I challenge the government to do the honourable thing and
publicize the correspondence with the ethics counsellor as it
concerns the scandal with the Minister of Canadian Heritage. If
there has been no formal correspondence between the Prime
Minister and Mr. Wilson, then that too is unacceptable.
The Prime Minister seems unclear whether he considers the
minister's actions unacceptable. This is understandable since he
had problems with ministerial conduct in the past. In 1971 when
the Prime Minister was Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development he created quite a bit of controversy by contacting
a superior court judge about a case being ruled upon.
In closing, this government is no stranger to unethical
behaviour and inappropriate actions. In their own red book the
Liberals compared their actions to those of the previous
Conservative government.
Does this government realize it is setting a very low standard
for ethical conduct and is failing to even meet that?
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very surprised that the hon. member for
Kindersley-Lloydminister would use expressions such as
scandal and so on to describe the situation that has occurred.
He knows perfectly well that his comments are inappropriate
and grossly exaggerated. But of course he is trying to appeal to
an audience that the Reform Party traditionally appeals to,
claiming the usual virtue that the NDP used to claim in this
House but even they have abandoned this pretence.
The hon. member knows perfectly well that what the
government has done in this case is entirely in conformity with
the red book. When he quoted from the red book he omitted to
mention the fact that the references he made and the quotations
he cited from the book were taken from a section dealing with
the obligation of lobbyists to disclose certain facts to
Parliament.
We talked about openness in government in connection with
lobbyists because we were concerned that in the case of the
previous government there were dealings going on between
lobbyists and members of Parliament and members of cabinet
that were not open to public scrutiny. We decided that should be
opened up and to that end we have introduced Bill C-43 to
amend the Lobbyists Registration Act, which bill is currently
before a committee as the hon. member knows perfectly well.
Under Bill C-43 the ethics counsellor is available to advise
not just the Prime Minister but also to make certain statements
to Parliament. He is given independent powers with respect to
the lobbying industry. If there are grounds to believe there has
been a breach of the lobbyists' code of conduct the ethics
counsellor could decide to investigate and the report on the
investigation would then be reported to Parliament.
Also under Bill C-43 the ethics counsellor must report to
Parliament annually on the administration of the legislation
regarding lobbying.
The hon. member knows perfectly well that is all contained in
the draft bill. If the member had been responsible in making his
comments he would have pointed that out. He knows that is the
situation.
In fact the Prime Minister has accepted full responsibility for
the actions of the Minister of Canadian Heritage in this case and
quite properly so. He described the minister's actions as an
honest mistake that was corrected by the minister at the earliest
opportunity.
I do not understand why the hon. member will not accept that
explanation. To me it is a reasonable one. As the Prime Minister
said in the House in question period yesterday, the buck stops
here. He is taking responsibility and no ethics counsellor can
take that responsibility away from the Prime Minister of Canada
who is ultimately responsible to this House.
The Deputy Speaker: Under Standing Order 38(5), the
motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been
adopted. Accordingly the House now stands adjourned until
tomorrow at 2 p.m.
(The House adjourned at 8.16 p.m.)